affiliate_monetizze_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds some behavioral context: it returns a TrackingLink and advises confirming the programmeId. It doesn't disclose potential error conditions, auth prerequisites, or side effects, but for a link-generation tool this is reasonably sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, every sentence earns its place. The first states the core function, the second provides usage context, return type, and a practical tip. 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return type, and a prerequisite call. It doesn't mention authentication explicitly, but the sibling verify_auth and the pairing advice imply it. Overall, it's quite complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'given programme and destination URL' which maps to the two parameters, and the pairing advice gives meaning to programmeId. However, it doesn't explain acceptable formats or constraints for destinationUrl, leaving some gaps the schema's plain string type doesn't fill.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a tracking link on Monetizze for a given programme and destination URL.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling generate_tracking_link tools by naming Monetizze, and also states the return type (TrackingLink).

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 a clear when-to-use: 'when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' It also recommends pairing with list_programmes, but doesn't explicitly state exclusions for other networks. However, the name and context make that implicit.

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