affiliate_cj-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 for behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and a prerequisite ('pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId'). However, it does not disclose whether authentication is required, potential side effects, or failure behavior, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise, free of fluff, and ends with a practical tip. This is an ideal structure for quick agent comprehension.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage context, return type, and a prerequisite. However, it omits details about the brand parameter, authentication expectations, and error scenarios, making it only partially complete for an agent that needs full context.

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 explains 'programme' and 'destination URL' which map to programmeId and destinationUrl, but the 'brand' parameter is entirely unexplained. The description adds partial meaning for two of three parameters, but the missing brand leaves a significant gap.

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 specific resource ('on CJ Affiliate (advertiser)'), and the inputs ('for a given programme and destination URL'). It also differentiates this tool from the regular CJ affiliate tool by explicitly noting the 'advertiser' role, and from similar tools by naming the network.

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 clear when-to-use scenario: 'when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' It also gives actionable guidance to pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., the non-advertiser variant) or exclusions, so it falls 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.