affiliate_2performant_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool 'Returns a TrackingLink' and advises confirming the programmeId, which gives some insight into prerequisites and output. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or modifies state, nor does it mention authentication requirements or error behaviors. For a generate function, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 primary action, followed by usage context and a return/guidance note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information. It is concise while covering key aspects in a logical order.

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 is simple, but the lack of annotations and an output schema means the description needs to provide more. It explains what it does, when to use it, and the return type, which is good. However, the 'TrackingLink' return value is not explained, and there is no mention of potential errors or URL constraints. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully anticipate the outcome, making it complete enough for basic use but not comprehensive.

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 schema has no descriptions for the two parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'given programme and destination URL,' which maps to programmeId and destinationUrl, and advises confirming the programmeId. This adds basic meaning, but it does not explain expected formats or constraints. The tip about list_programmes partially compensates for the missing schema but does not fully clarify parameter semantics.

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 purpose: 'Generate a tracking link on 2Performant for a given programme and destination URL.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_programmes or verify_auth. The additional context about sharing affiliate links to specific products/pages reinforces its unique role.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined,' providing clear when-to-use direction. It also suggests pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, which is a useful preparatory step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for other networks or for listing transactions), leaving some ambiguity among the many sibling tools.

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