affiliate_awin-advertiser_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and implies a prerequisite (the merchant must have been joined), but does not describe side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or quota consumption (notable given the sibling get_link_builder_quota). This adds some value but leaves significant context unaddressed.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the action, the usage trigger, the return type, and a practical prerequisite in three sentences. No wasted words or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 three-string-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to ensure a correct programmeId. The only significant omission is the meaning of the 'brand' parameter, but the overall context is sufficient for basic correct invocation.

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 input schema provides no description for any of the three parameters (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies programmeId ('confirm the programmeId before calling') and destinationUrl ('specific product or page'), but the 'brand' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving a clear gap. The guidance for two of three parameters keeps this above a 2.

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'), the target resource ('Awin (advertiser)'), and the inputs ('for a given programme and destination URL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tracking-link tools by specifying the advertiser role and network, avoiding confusion with publisher-side or other-network tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: '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 recommends pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, stopping short of a 5.

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