convert_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important failure mode: Pinduoduo retired goods_id_list and passing it triggers error 40005. It also notes the returned link carries coupons. However, it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or link persistence, so the behavioral picture is only partially drawn.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, critical platform caveats follow, and the Args block closes it out. The two consecutive sentences about Pinduoduo overlap slightly, but the structure is easy to scan and mostly earns its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and all parameters are explained. The main gap is operational context such as auth requirements or whether the generated link is account-bound, which matters for a conversion tool.

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 0%, so the description must document all three parameters, and it does: platform values (taobao/jd/pdd), the accepted item format per platform (taobao num_iid, jd skuId or URL, pdd goods_sign), and sub_pid's optional purpose for distinguishing traffic sources. This fully compensates for 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 opening sentence gives a precise verb and resource: turning a product into one's own promotion/rebate link, including coupon handling. No sibling tool (shopping_status, search_products, get_product) performs link conversion, so the purpose is unambiguous against the tool set.

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 gives platform-specific usage rules (pdd requires goods_sign, not numeric goods_id) and identifies sub_pid's role for traffic attribution. It does not state when to avoid the tool or point to an alternative, but the per-platform context is clear and actionable.

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