affiliate_admitad-advertiser_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type 'TrackingLink' and the workflow hint about list_programmes, but it does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, error cases, or what the TrackingLink contains. For a generation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by use case and return/pairing advice. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

Given three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, use case, return type, and a prerequisite, but falls short on the 'brand' parameter and does not cover authentication or error scenarios. It is adequate for a simple tool but with clear gaps.

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 explains 'programme' (likely programmeId) and 'destination URL', but does not clarify the 'brand' parameter at all. It adds some meaning but incomplete.

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 verb 'Generate', the resource 'tracking link on Admitad (advertiser)', and the inputs 'programme and destination URL'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to the Admitad advertiser context and the use case of sharing affiliate links for merchants the user has 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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use scenario: 'when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' It also recommends pairing with list_programmes to confirm programmeId, giving clear context, though it does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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