affiliate_rakuten_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It does add value by stating that it returns a TrackingLink and implying the prerequisite of a joined merchant programme. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, authentication requirements, or whether any state changes occur, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 focused sentences: purpose, when to use, and return value with a pairing tip. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence. No redundancy 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 two-parameter link-generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a practical prerequisite for the key parameter. It does not address error handling or authentication, but given the simple nature of the tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that programmeId is the identifier from a joined programme and recommends confirming it via list_programmes, and it explains destinationUrl as the specific product or page URL. This adds meaning beyond the raw parameter names and types.

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 'Generate a tracking link on Rakuten Advertising for a given programme and destination URL,' which clearly specifies the verb, resource, and network. It also differentiates from sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks by naming Rakuten Advertising explicitly. The use case ('share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined') further clarifies purpose.

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?

The description gives a clear when-to-use: '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 advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, which is a useful procedural prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name an alternative for other networks, so it falls short of a 5.

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