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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and a title, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds real behavioral facts the annotations do not: the token is auto-generated when omitted and the operation is gated to Growth/Enterprise plans. It does not say what happens to existing links, whether tokens must be unique, or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, default behavior, eligibility constraint, endpoint. The key fact (additional link for an affiliate) is front-loaded with no 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 create tool with no output schema, an agent would benefit from knowing that the returned link/token is the usable artifact, especially since the token may be generated server-side. Plan gating and token behavior are covered, but the result of the call is left unspecified.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds the non-obvious behavior that the optional 'token' is generated server-side when omitted — something the schema's pattern/example text does not convey. That is meaningful added meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Give an affiliate an additional tracking link') and clarifies it is an *additional* link, which separates it from rewardful_create_affiliate and rewardful_create_affiliate_coupon. It also names the underlying API endpoint. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it differs from.

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 'Growth/Enterprise plans only' constraint is genuine eligibility guidance an agent needs before calling. However, there is no guidance on when to create a link versus creating an affiliate, coupon, or campaign, and no prerequisites stated.

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