affiliate_eduzz_generate_tracking_link

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states 'Returns a TrackingLink' (a return type) and implies a safe generation operation, but it does not explicitly mention whether this is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The reference to confirming programmeId via list_programmes adds some behavioral context, but the safety profile is incomplete.

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, each earning its place: action, use case, and additional guidance (return type and pairing with list_programmes). It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

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, the description covers the main purpose, usage scenario, and a recommendation to verify programmeId. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps: it does not explain the structure of the returned TrackingLink, potential errors, or any prerequisites beyond joining the merchant. This is adequate but not thorough for a production agent.

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 identifies the two inputs as 'programme' and 'destination URL,' which maps to programmeId and destinationUrl. However, it does not clarify the format or constraints of these parameters (e.g., URL structure, where to find programmeId beyond the hint to use list_programmes). The basic meaning is conveyed, but not enough to fully replace 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Generate a tracking link on Eduzz for a given programme and destination URL.' It specifies the resource (Eduzz tracking link) and the key inputs, distinguishing it from other network-specific generators. The added use-case context ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page') reinforces its purpose and aligns with the tool's name.

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 provides a clear scenario for use: '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 recommends pairing with list_programmes to confirm programmeId, which is practical guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a distinct tool.

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