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

It goes beyond the annotations by disclosing real behavioral traits: the URL is signed, links are Clickwise /dl/-tracked, the operation is idempotent in a user-visible way ('the same request returns the same URL'), and external factors (freshness, permissions, assignments, delivery caps) can affect the result. This aligns with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false without contradicting them.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information (capability, return value, idempotency, prerequisites), with the core action front-loaded. Slightly dense but 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 three-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers the action, return artifact, idempotency, auth requirement and constraints. The main gap is the undocumented category parameter and any indication of error or cap-exceeded behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It documents country ('one country') and format ('json, csv, tsv or xml') but never mentions the category parameter, leaving one of three parameters completely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource pairing ('Create or refresh a GTIN product feed') plus the concrete outcome (a signed URL with tracked product links), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings such as get_monetization_feed, which could plausibly return similar feed artifacts.

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?

It sets preconditions (authenticated affiliate API key, one country, freshness/permissions/assignment/delivery-cap constraints) which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over get_monetization_feed or get_catalog_stats, and gives no explicit exclusion or alternative routing.

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