affiliate_accesstrade_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a prerequisite ('pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId') and mentions the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink'). However, it doesn't state whether the operation has side effects, requires specific auth, or handles errors. This is moderate transparency but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by usage context, return type, and a workflow tip. No redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what it does, when to use it, a prerequisite, and the return type. It doesn't cover error scenarios, but that's likely acceptable given the tool's simplicity. The mention of 'merchant they have joined' adds useful context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the parameters in prose ('programme and destination URL') but adds little beyond the schema field names. The pairing instruction for programmeId is useful, but destinationUrl semantics are not elaborated (e.g., format, whether it must be a valid URL). Partial compensation.

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 action: 'Generate a tracking link on AccessTrade for a given programme and destination URL.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools for other networks. It also adds the use case 'when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.'

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: 'Use this when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' It also advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling. While it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, the 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.