affiliate_mrge_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and the need to validate programmeId, but omits auth requirements, error cases, or destination URL format expectations. This is moderate disclosure, but it doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause earns its place: the action, the use case, the return type, and a prerequisite. No redundant content or 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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, use case, return type, and a precondition. It doesn't delve into error handling or the structure of a TrackingLink, but these are less critical for a straightforward link generator. It is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 only parameter names and types with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters ('programme and destination URL') and adds the valuable hint to confirm programmeId via list_programmes, but it does not specify URL format or any constraints beyond what the schema already shows.

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 a specific action: 'Generate a tracking link on mrge for a given programme and destination URL.' The verb 'generate' and resource 'tracking link' are precise, and the qualifier 'on mrge' distinguishes this 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?

It explicitly 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 context. It also gives a practical prerequisite: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId.' However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions like 'for other networks, use their respective generate_tracking_link tool,' leaving some ambiguity.

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