affiliate_kwanko-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 notes that the tool 'Returns a TrackingLink' and implies a prerequisite (valid programmeId). However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or side effects (e.g., whether the link is saved/created server-side). For a simple link-generation action, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage context, return type, and a workflow hint. No redundant or vague filler.

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 3-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, when to use, return type, and a prerequisite step. However, it leaves the 'brand' parameter undefined and does not mention error handling or any required authentication. This makes it usable but not fully self-sufficient.

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. It adds meaning for 'programmeId' (via 'programme' and 'confirm the programmeId') and 'destinationUrl' (via 'destination URL'), but the 'brand' parameter is entirely unexplained. No formats, defaults, or examples are given, leaving a significant gap for one required parameter.

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 Kwanko (advertiser) for a given programme and destination URL.' The verb 'generate' plus the resource 'tracking link' and the network context ('Kwanko (advertiser)') make it specific and distinguish it from sibling tools for other networks or the non-advertiser Kwanko variant. The use case sentence reinforces 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 states when to use it: '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 workflow tip: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as the non-advertiser Kwanko generate_tracking_link variant.

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