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

The description discloses important behavior beyond annotations: the fallback to unchanged URL, attribution baking, commission sharing, and the guarantee that the recommendation is never changed. It does not fully detail registration requirements or auth, but annotations already signal non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the added context is valuable.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the value proposition, and follows with practical instructions and a trust statement. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core behavior, edge case (no affiliate program), and outcome. It does not mention registration prerequisites or validation behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward URL-passing tool, and the description is otherwise complete.

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% and the single parameter 'url' is described in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by calling it 'the outbound URL your agent chose' and explaining what happens with it (monetized or unchanged), which enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's function: converting an outbound URL into a monetized affiliate link when possible, and returning it unchanged otherwise. It uses specific verbs like 'pass', 'return', and 'earn commission', and is distinct from sibling tools like get_recommendations or check_publisher_stats.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent is already recommending a link and wants to earn commission. It implies this is the only relevant tool for monetizing an existing chosen URL, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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