affiliate_firstpromoter_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does state the return type and a prerequisite (confirming programmeId), but it doesn't clarify side effects, authentication needs, or whether this call persists anything. The added context is useful but not comprehensive, so a 3 reflects that it goes beyond a bare statement but still lacks key behavioral traits.

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 core action, and includes only relevant usage and workflow guidance. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with 3 required params, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the primary purpose, usage scenario, return type, and a helpful prerequisite, but it misses brand parameter meaning and any behavioral caveats. For a simple tool it is mostly adequate but has clear 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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains 'programme' and 'destination URL' in prose, which maps to programmeId and destinationUrl, but the required 'brand' parameter is entirely unexplained. The pairing advice adds meaning for programmeId, but the overall compensation is incomplete with one of three params unaddressed.

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 FirstPromoter for a given programme and destination URL,' identifying the action, resource, and inputs. It also specifies the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming FirstPromoter. This is a specific, non-tautological description.

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,' providing a clear trigger scenario. It also advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, which is an actionable alternative/companion guideline, though it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use cases.

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