suggest_affiliate_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It uses 'suggested' to imply the output is non-authoritative, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it checks code availability, or what side effects may occur. This is a significant transparency gap for a generation tool.

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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant words, making it very concise. It is efficiently structured, though it lacks additional supporting detail that could aid understanding, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose but omits any explanation of the output format or behavior. Since there is no output schema, it could be clearer about what is returned, but for a simple tool it is minimally adequate.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (agentName and count) with 100% coverage. The description only reinforces that agentName is the basis and adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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' and the resource 'suggested affiliate codes', with the input basis 'agent name'. It is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling affiliate tools like 'check_affiliate_code' or 'get_affiliate_info'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other affiliate-related tools, nor any prerequisites or alternatives. It only states the function, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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