affiliate_impact-advertiser_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 behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and hints at a precautionary step (confirming programmeId), which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential side effects, failure modes, or rate limits, leaving a noticeable gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action, then provides usage context, and finally a return type plus a practical pairing hint. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the return type, usage context, and a validation tip, but the unexplained 'brand' parameter and lack of behavioral details (auth, errors) leave clear gaps. It is a minimum-viable description for a simple generator tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It indirectly explains 'programmeId' and 'destinationUrl' via 'given programme and destination URL' and the note about confirming programmeId, but it completely omits 'brand'—a required parameter. This leaves the agent uncertain about what value to supply for 'brand', making the description insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action: 'Generate a tracking link on Impact (advertiser) for a given programme and destination URL.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes the tool from other generate_tracking_link siblings by specifying the network (Impact) and role (advertiser).

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 a clear when-to-use instruction: '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 includes a practical prerequisite: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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