affiliate_levanta_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and implies a prerequisite (programmeId must be confirmed via list_programmes). However, it omits auth requirements, error behavior, side effects, and rate limits, which are relevant for a tool call.

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 core action, and every sentence provides useful information. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with only 2 required params and no output schema. The description covers purpose, when to use, return type, and a prerequisite, which is good. However, the lack of parameter-level detail and any network-specific caveats prevents it from being fully 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 compensate. It mentions 'programme and destination URL', which essentially restates the parameter names without adding constraints, formats, or examples. The only added semantic is the hint to confirm programmeId via list_programmes, which is minimal.

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 Levanta for a given programme and destination URL.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly names Levanta, distinguishing it from the many sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks.

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?

Provides clear context: '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 advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative networks.

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