affiliate_offer18_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and a prerequisite (confirm programmeId via list_programmes), but does not mention authentication needs, side effects, or error behavior. This is moderate transparency but leaves gaps expected for an external API 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?

Three sentences with the core action front-loaded. No redundant filler; each sentence adds a new piece of information (what it does, when to use, and how to prepare).

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 expected inputs, the prerequisite for obtaining a programmeId, and the return type. It is not overburdened by complexity, but lacks details on error conditions and URL formatting. Overall it is sufficient to guide an agent through correct 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?

The description mentions 'programme' and 'destination URL' which map to the two parameters, but these are nearly identical to the parameter names (programmeId, destinationUrl). With 0% schema description coverage, it should add more semantic detail such as the format of destinationUrl or what a valid programmeId looks like. It does not go beyond what the parameter names already imply.

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?

Clearly states it 'Generate a tracking link on Offer18 for a given programme and destination URL.' Names the specific platform (Offer18) and the action, distinguishing it from sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks. Also explains the end-user goal: 'to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.'

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 explicit guidance: '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 recommends pairing with a sibling tool: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling,' which tells the agent how to obtain a valid parameter. It does not explicitly exclude cases, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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