affiliate_effiliation_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 does disclose the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and hints at a failure-prevention step (confirming programmeId via list_programmes). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error conditions, URL format constraints, or potential side effects, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns plus a prerequisite. Front-loaded and free of redundancy or filler.

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 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, parameter semantics, and return value. It is reasonably complete, though it omits potential error cases and auth prerequisites that would make it fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adequately maps the two parameters: 'programme' refers to programmeId (the merchant joined) and 'destination URL' is the specific product or page. The advice to pair with list_programmes adds meaning to programmeId. It lacks format/validation details for either parameter, which prevents a 5.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Generate a tracking link on Effiliation for a given programme and destination URL.' It names the network (Effiliation), so it is clearly distinguished from the many sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks. The use-case sentence ('share an affiliate link to a specific product or page') adds further clarity.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined' gives a clear context for invoking this tool. The pairing advice to 'confirm the programmeId before calling' is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops 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.