affiliate_adrecord_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return type and hints at error prevention by recommending programmeId confirmation, but it omits details about authentication requirements, side effects (if any), or failure modes. This is adequate but not rich.

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, each earning its place: purpose in the first, usage context in the second, return type and prerequisite in the third. It is front-loaded with the core action, concise, and free of 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what, when, return type, and a crucial prerequisite. Minor gaps like potential error conditions or auth expectations are not covered, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 does by mapping 'programme' to programmeId and 'destination URL' to destinationUrl, and clarifies that programmeId should come from list_programmes. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about URL formatting or programme ID structure.

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 a specific action ('Generate a tracking link on Adrecord'), identifies the resource and inputs ('for a given programme and destination URL'), and distinguishes it from sibling network-specific tools by naming Adrecord. It also mentions the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly provides a usage scenario ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined') and gives a direct prerequisite instruction ('pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId'). This clearly guides when to use the tool and how to avoid errors, effectively steering the agent 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.