affiliate_refersion_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return type (TrackingLink) and implies a prerequisite (valid programmeId), but does not mention authentication, side effects, or error conditions. Some value is added, but significant transparency gaps remain.

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, all relevant, with the action front-loaded. The usage sentence is slightly redundant with the first, but the return-type and prerequisite tip add value. Efficient overall.

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 3-param tool, the description gives purpose, a use case, and return type. However, missing brand explanation, no mention of auth verification, and no output schema mean the description is not fully complete for invocation. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 clarify all parameters. It only covers programmeId and destinationUrl implicitly; brand is never mentioned or explained. No formats, constraints, or value examples are provided.

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 action (generate a tracking link), the system (Refersion), and the inputs (programme and destination URL). It also provides a use-case scenario, distinguishing it from sibling network-specific tools.

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 'Use this when' context and advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the 'on Refersion' phrasing plus sibling names make the network boundary clear.

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