affiliate_involve-asia_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 states that the tool 'Returns a TrackingLink,' which is useful, and mentions the prerequisite of confirming the programmeId. However, it does not disclose whether the tool requires authentication, whether it creates a persistent resource, or any side effects. For a link generation tool, this is a moderate gap, though the key behavior is at least stated.

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 long and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: the function, the use case, and the return value/prerequisite. There is no redundant information, making it highly concise 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?

For a simple tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and a critical prerequisite (confirming programmeId). The only notable omission is the lack of explicit authentication guidance, but the network-specific naming and sibling verify_auth tools provide indirect context. Overall, it gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 compensate for explaining the parameters. It identifies the two inputs as 'a given programme and destination URL,' and the instruction to pair with list_programmes adds practical meaning to the programmeId parameter. However, it does not elaborate on the expected format or constraints for destinationUrl, nor does it explicitly define programmeId beyond the name. The compensation is partial but not comprehensive.

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 tool's function: 'Generate a tracking link on Involve Asia for a given programme and destination URL.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly names the network (Involve Asia), distinguishing it from the many other generate_tracking_link tools for different networks. The use case for affiliate link sharing is also specified.

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 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 clear contextual guidance. It also advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling, which is a explicit prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use other networks' tools, but the 'on Involve Asia' qualifier makes this evident from the sibling context.

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