affiliate_pepperjam_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 full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and implies the need for a valid programmeId via the list_programmes pairing advice. However, it does not explicitly state whether authentication is required or specify error behavior on invalid inputs, leaving some gaps.

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, each adding value: purpose, usage scenario, and return/prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a validation step. It lacks explicit error handling or authentication notes, but the core context is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description compensates by identifying the two parameters as 'programme and destination URL.' It clarifies the purpose of programmeId through 'confirm the programmeId,' but lacks details on formats, constraints, or examples. This is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool but not comprehensive.

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 tool's function: 'Generate a tracking link on Pepperjam for a given programme and destination URL.' It uses a specific verb ('Generate'), a precise resource ('tracking link on Pepperjam'), and identifies the key inputs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_programmes or get_programme.

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: 'when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' It also provides a companion step: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling,' which acts as a prerequisite and guides the agent to verify input before invocation.

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