generate_affiliate_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses supported networks (Awin, Amazon, Tradedoubler) and implicitly suggests auto-detection, but does not mention output format, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for unsupported URLs. This is moderate transparency for a simple utility.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes essential scope (supported networks). No filler, perfectly concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or at least hint at the output. It does not. It also lacks details on unsupported URL handling or failure modes. While the tool is simple, missing return value and error context makes it incomplete for an agent.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (url and network), with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level information, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verb 'Convert' and resource 'regular product URL into an affiliate tracking link', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_products or list_merchants. It also names supported networks, adding precision.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose, making it obvious when to use it (when you have a product URL and need an affiliate link). However, it does not mention alternatives or explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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