Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, and the description adds important behavior beyond that: the output is personalized with the account's tracking script and webhook address, and access requires Pro plan or higher or a new unpicked account. It also discloses platform-specific webhook behavior for Stripe, Paddle, Polar, and Creem without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with what the tool returns and then adds usage, connection, and plan prerequisites. It is dense and long for a single paragraph, but most clauses carry actionable context rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the return contains, how to use it, the relevant next step, platform connection caveats, and access prerequisites. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and understand the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the enum and platform descriptions already carry most of the parameter meaning. The description adds useful context that the selected platform determines whether a manual webhook step is needed, especially for Stripe, Paddle, Polar, and Creem, which goes beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states a specific verb and resource: returns tracking instructions for affiliate sales on a chosen payment platform, personalized with this account's script and webhook. It also makes clear the return is the same text shown on the Integrations page for AI assistants, which distinguishes it from setup/checking tools like check_tracking.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use it to add the tracking script to the site and pass the referral to checkout, then use check_tracking to confirm it works. It also explains that platform connection happens in the browser and that manual webhook steps are only needed when that connection is not used.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.