affiliate_indoleads_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 only mentions 'Returns a TrackingLink' but doesn't say whether this is a read-only operation, if authentication is required, what side effects exist, or how errors are handled. 'Generate' implies a creation-like action, but no caution or prerequisites are disclosed.

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 exactly three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main function, then adds a use-case statement, and finishes with a return type and pairing advice. 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 simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose, use case, and return type. However, it omits important context like authentication requirements (sibling verify_auth implies authentication is needed), error behavior, and details about the TrackingLink return structure since there is no output schema. This is a moderate gap.

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 provides 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps 'programme' to programmeId and 'destination URL' to destinationUrl, adding semantic context. The tip to confirm programmeId via list_programmes also gives practical parameter guidance. However, it doesn't explain URL format, encoding, or possible validation issues, so it only partially compensates.

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 Indoleads for a given programme and destination URL,' using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly names the platform (Indoleads), distinguishing it from the many other network-specific generate_tracking_link sibling tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: '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 adds a practical pairing instruction: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use alternatives, the context is clear enough.

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