affiliate_daisycon-advertiser_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 transparency burden. It states the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and the condition 'merchant they have joined' (implying advertiser auth), but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Moderate 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?

Three well-structured sentences: action, usage context, return value/prerequisite. No filler, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource.

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 and lack of output schema/annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, return type, and a prerequisite. The unexplained `brand` parameter is a notable gap for a required field, but overall the description is fairly self-sufficient.

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 has 3 params with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'programme and destination URL', covering programmeId and destinationUrl, and advises confirming programmeId via list_programmes. However, the required `brand` parameter is never explained, leaving 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 on Daisycon (advertiser)' with specific inputs 'programme and destination URL'. This distinguishes it from the publisher-side `affiliate_daisycon_generate_tracking_link` by explicitly naming the advertiser context.

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 clear usage context: '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 gives a practical prerequisite: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' Lacks explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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