affiliate_commission-factory-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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns a TrackingLink' and suggests confirming programmeId beforehand, which is useful context. However, it does not state whether the operation has side effects, requires special authentication beyond the advertiser context, or has any rate limits/error conditions; for a generation tool this is a moderate gap.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core action in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: action, use case, return value, and a prerequisite tip; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, use case, return type, and a prerequisite, but it omits parameter semantics for brand and does not address error handling or auth requirements. This makes it functional but not fully 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 coverage is 0% and the description only mentions 'programme' and 'destination URL,' which maps to programmeId and destinationUrl but leaves 'brand' completely unexplained. It does give a hint about programmeId via the list_programmes pairing advice, but fails to add semantics for brand or the expected format of destinationUrl, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Generate a tracking link on Commission Factory (advertiser) for a given programme and destination URL,' which names a specific verb and resource. It also scopes the tool to the advertiser variant of Commission Factory, distinguishing it from the many sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks and from the non-advertiser Commission Factory variant.

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 says 'Use this when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined,' which clearly identifies the use case. It also advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm programmeId before calling, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, 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.