affiliate_financeads_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a TrackingLink and advises confirming programmeId beforehand, but it does not mention side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. Some behavioral context is provided, but important gaps remain.

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 serving a distinct purpose: action, use case, and return/prerequisite. No redundant words, and the description is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return type, and a prerequisite. However, it omits details about output structure beyond 'TrackingLink' and does not address potential errors or auth context, leaving some completeness gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does by mentioning 'programme and destination URL' in the first sentence, giving context to the two parameters. However, it does not elaborate on formats, validation, or how to obtain the programmeId beyond the pairing instruction.

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 'Generate a tracking link on financeAds for a given programme and destination URL,' which is a specific verb+resource construction. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the network 'financeAds' and identifying the key inputs.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined,' giving a concrete trigger condition. It also recommends pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, which is a clear prerequisite and companion tool reference.

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