affiliate_everflow_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 a key prerequisite (confirming programmeId), which is valuable. However, it lacks information about authentication requirements, potential errors, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential information: purpose, use case, return type, and a practical pairing instruction. No filler or redundant content.

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 (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a prerequisite. It could be slightly more complete by describing the format of the returned TrackingLink, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 does so by referencing both parameters in context: 'for a given programme and destination URL.' This clarifies the purpose of each parameter at a high level, though it does not specify formats (e.g., URL structure or programmeId type) beyond the schema's basic string types.

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 starts with a specific action: 'Generate a tracking link on Everflow for a given programme and destination URL.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming the Everflow platform. The additional use case ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined') reinforces the purpose.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link...') and a concrete prerequisite: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the Everflow-specific naming and contextual guidance make the intended usage clear.

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