affiliate_adtraction-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 of behavioral disclosure. It states that a TrackingLink is returned and implies a prerequisite (confirming programmeId), but it does not disclose authentication requirements, potential errors, or any side effects of generating a link. For a tool that generates a resource, this is a significant 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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, the second gives usage context and a practical pairing tip. No redundant or filler content.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return type, and a prerequisite. However, it misses an explanation of the 'brand' parameter and does not mention authentication or validation behavior. The tool is simple, so this is adequate but not complete.

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 0% description coverage for its three parameters. The description mentions 'programme' and 'destination URL' but completely omits the required 'brand' parameter. This leaves the agent guessing what 'brand' refers to and how to populate it, so the description does not adequately compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 identifies the action ('Generate a tracking link'), the target system ('Adtraction (advertiser)'), and the inputs ('programme and destination URL'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying the advertiser variant and pairs it with list_programmes, making the tool's role 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?

The description provides explicit 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. However, it does not explicitly exclude using the non-advertiser variant or other network tools, though the name provides implicit differentiation.

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