affiliate_flipkart_generate_tracking_link

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and hints at the need for a valid programmeId. However, it does not mention potential side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a generate operation, this is a moderate disclosure but leaves several behavioral aspects unstated.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the main function, providing usage context, and giving return type and a validation tip. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant information, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with only two simple required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to verify the input. It lacks details on error handling or authentication, but given the simplicity and the existence of sibling tools for verification, it is reasonably complete.

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 add meaning. It explains that programmeId identifies the joined merchant programme and destinationUrl is the target page/product URL. It also advises confirming the programmeId via list_programmes, which adds semantic value beyond the raw string names in the schema.

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 specific action: 'Generate a tracking link on Flipkart Affiliate for a given programme and destination URL.' It identifies the exact resource (Flipkart Affiliate tracking link) and distinguishes it from sibling tools for other networks and from Flipkart's list/get/programme tools. The mention of returning a TrackingLink further clarifies 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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' It also provides a concrete prerequisite/alternative by advising to 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling,' giving the agent actionable guidance on how to validate the input.

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