affiliate_netrefer_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. It discloses the return value ('Returns a TrackingLink') and a prerequisite (confirm programmeId via list_programmes), but it does not disclose authentication requirements, potential side effects, or error behavior. This is partial transparency, hence a mid-range score.

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 purpose, followed by usage and return/prerequisite information. Every sentence contributes unique value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 2 straightforward parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what it does, when to use, what it returns, and how to prepare. It could mention error cases or auth requirements, but those are not essential given the simple scope. Overall it is sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 maps the two parameters implicitly: 'programme' refers to programmeId and 'destination URL' refers to destinationUrl. It adds helpful guidance that the programmeId should be confirmed via list_programmes, but it does not explain the expected format or constraints for destinationUrl. This provides some semantic value but leaves gaps.

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 states a specific action: 'Generate a tracking link on NetRefer for a given programme and destination URL.' It clearly identifies the network (NetRefer) and the output (a TrackingLink), distinguishing it from 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 states when to use it: '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 to confirm the programmeId, which is a form of companion guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools beyond the companion reference.

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