Switch from another affiliate tool

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety profile, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the migration preserves old links, sends affiliate emails, and requires no account. The downstream side effects (imports, emails) are attributed to the page rather than the call, so there is no contradiction with readOnlyHint.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the whole definition is one long comma-spliced sentence mixing what the tool is, what happens downstream, and a behavioral warning. Every clause carries information, yet the dense run-on hurts scannability and the key guardrail about API keys is buried mid-sentence.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the flow and the guardrails well. It is still incomplete on the one thing an agent needs in order to act: whether the tool returns a link, step text, or a status, and how it relates to the neighboring onboarding tools.

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 enum parameter is already documented, including the note that 'other' means CSV. The description lists the same four vendors and repeats the CSV fallback, so it adds confirmation but no new meaning about the parameter.

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 names the concrete subject: moving an affiliate program to LinkJolt from Rewardful, Tolt, FirstPromoter, Affonso, or via CSV. It covers the migration flow (API key page, campaign fill-in, affiliate import, coding-tool prompt, emails), so an agent can tell this is a migration-onboarding helper. What it never states outright is what calling the tool actually returns (a URL? the instructions?), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A clear triggering condition is implied and reinforced: use this when someone is coming from another affiliate tool, and do not ask for the API key in chat because the person pastes it on the page; no LinkJolt account is required. That is strong context, but no alternatives are named, so the agent must infer on its own how this differs from plan_affiliate_program or get_setup_status.

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