affiliate_everflow-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 burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and implies the outcome of generating a link. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or potential errors. The tip about confirming programmeId hints at a validation dependency but does not elaborate.

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 with no unnecessary verbiage. It front-loads the core action, then adds usage context, and ends with a practical tip. Each sentence earns its place and contributes clear value.

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 generation tool, the description covers its purpose and usage well, and the output type is stated. However, it omits the 'brand' parameter entirely and provides no detail on the TrackingLink format or any prerequisites beyond confirming programmeId. Given the lack of schema descriptions and annotations, this is a noticeable gap in completeness.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It addresses programmeId and destinationUrl implicitly as inputs, but the 'brand' parameter is never mentioned or explained. With three required parameters and no schema descriptions, leaving one fully unexplained is 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 tool's function: generating a tracking link on Everflow (Advertiser) using a given programme and destination URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming the Everflow (Advertiser) platform and the use case of sharing an affiliate link to a specific product or page.

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 explicitly states when to use it: when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a product or page on a merchant they have joined. It also provides a concrete recommendation to pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the use case is clear and distinct.

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