affiliate_admitad_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (TrackingLink) and implies a prerequisite (joined merchant). However, it does not explain potential errors, authentication requirements, or whether the link generation has side effects. The description adds some context but is not deeply 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage context and a practical tip. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition. The structure is clean and easily scannable.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a workflow tip. It lacks error-handling or parameter-format details, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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%, and the description mentions 'programme and destination URL,' which maps directly to the parameters. It does not elaborate on formats or where programmeId comes from beyond a vague pairing hint. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 action ('Generate a tracking link on Admitad') with specific inputs (programme and destination URL). It distinguishes the tool from sibling network-specific generators by naming Admitad and mentions the return type (TrackingLink). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use: '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. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is distinct.

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