affiliate_affiliate-future_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and hints at failure prevention ('confirm the programmeId before calling'), but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. 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 with clear value: action, usage context, return type and prerequisite. No redundant phrasing or filler. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 output schema, the description covers the core action, when to use, return type, and a key integration step (list_programmes). It is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool, though it omits details like authentication or link formatting.

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 identifies both parameters ('programme' and 'destination URL') and connects programmeId to list_programmes for lookup. However, it adds no format, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps for an agent needing precise input semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate'), resource ('tracking link on Affiliate Future'), and inputs ('given programme and destination URL'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the Affiliate Future network and is unambiguous about its function.

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 states when to use ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined') and provides a practical prerequisite ('pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions, but the context is clear.

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