affiliate_ebay_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 adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Returns a TrackingLink' and advising to confirm programmeId via list_programmes. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, potential side effects, error conditions, or validation rules for the destination URL, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 concise, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage context and return/prerequisite info without any redundancy or wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and a key preparatory step (confirm programmeId). It falls short only by not addressing error handling or validation details, but it is largely complete for its level of complexity.

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 names both parameters ('programme and destination URL') and gives semantic meaning to programmeId by recommending confirmation via list_programmes. However, it does not specify formats, constraints, or how the destination URL should be structured (e.g., full URL with scheme), so parameter semantics remain under-specified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a tracking link on eBay Partner Network for a given programme and destination URL.' It clearly distinguishes this from the many sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks by naming eBay Partner Network, and it identifies the key inputs (programme and destination URL).

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?

It provides clear when-to-use guidance: '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 helpful prerequisite: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for other networks), though the tool name itself implies eBay-specific usage.

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