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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: a provisional account is created, only programs that can issue a link now are included, and claiming/payout is a separate later step. It does not warn that repeated calls create additional accounts, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core action and its result lead, and the lifecycle caveat follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 12-parameter, non-idempotent open-world creation tool with no output schema and 42% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the returned link structure or clarify most inputs, so an agent cannot confidently fill out the call from this definition alone.

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 only 42% with 12 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate but adds almost nothing about them beyond confirming claim_email is optional. topic, channel, country, category, limit, and both traffic fields are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving over half the surface opaque.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Create a provisional Clickwise affiliate') plus the outcome ('return tracked links'), which is well beyond a tautology. It doesn't explicitly contrast against siblings like find_affiliate_programs or get_tracked_link_request, though the 'programs that can issue one now' scoping hints at the distinction.

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?

Sets up the workflow context clearly: the email is optional and the account is claimed plus payout details added later via update_profile (a named sibling). It doesn't state when NOT to use this or when to prefer alternatives such as find_affiliate_programs first, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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