affiliate_belboon_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 hints at a prerequisite (confirming programmeId via list_programmes). However, it does not mention whether this is a safe/read-only operation, authentication needs, or potential side effects. This is a moderate gap given the absence of annotations.

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: three sentences with no filler. It delivers purpose, usage context, and a return type/prerequisite in an efficient order. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: purpose, usage, and return type. It could be improved by elaborating on the TrackingLink structure or potential errors, but for a two-parameter tool, this is reasonably 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so by naming 'programme and destination URL' and clarifying that these correspond to 'a specific product or page on a merchant.' This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify formats (e.g., URL encoding) or validate types.

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 tool's function: 'Generate a tracking link on Belboon for a given programme and destination URL.' It specifies the network (Belboon), the action (generate tracking link), and the key inputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools for other networks.

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 a concrete use case: '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, offering a useful sequential guideline. Does not explicitly state when not to use it, 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.