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

Annotations flag it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the affiliate is only 'provisional', email is optional, and the account is claimed later for payout. That discloses the delayed-claim lifecycle detail an agent would otherwise miss. It does not state auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the creation behavior and the returned formats. No filler, though the packed clause structure requires a careful read and somewhat buries the distinguishing output description.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of naming the three return formats (cards, HTML embed snippet, JSON feed), which is the key information for this tool. It also flags the side-effect and delayed payout lifecycle. Given 8 all-optional parameters, it is adequate without being exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds meaning to claim_email ('optional; the account is claimed later for payout'), leaving the other parameters to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and names the resources involved (provisional Clickwise affiliate, tracked links) plus the returned artifacts (cards, HTML embed, JSON feed). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling request_tracked_links by describing both its relationship to it and its different output. The only weakness is the 'get_monetization_feed' name, which reads as read-only while the description reveals a creation side effect.

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 implies the use case ('for a publisher's site or app') and positions itself as an alternative to request_tracked_links, but never states explicitly when to choose this over that sibling. An agent must infer that the embed/feed output is the deciding factor.

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