affiliate_avantlink_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns a TrackingLink' and implies a dependency on a valid programmeId, but does not mention authentication requirements, potential side effects, or error behavior for invalid input. For a simple link-generation tool 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by usage context, and then a return-value note plus a pairing hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, the return value, and a recommended setup step (list_programmes). It lacks details on error handling or auth, but for a simple, well-scoped operation this is near-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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming both parameters in prose: 'given programme and destination URL' and elaborating that the destination is 'a specific product or page on a merchant.' It also points to list_programmes for programmeId sourcing, adding practical meaning beyond bare schema names.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Generate a tracking link on AvantLink' for a given programme and destination URL. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling network-specific generate_tracking_link tools by naming AvantLink and specifying the purpose (sharing an affiliate link to a product/page).

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?

Provides explicit use-case guidance: 'Use this when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' Also gives a concrete operational recommendation: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling,' which helps the agent avoid errors. This goes beyond generic context.

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