get_tracked_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a compliance constraint (the mandatory disclosure_text) but omits other traits such as whether the tracked link mutates state, expiry/rate limits, or auth requirements. Some value added, but significant 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?

A single efficiently packed sentence that front-loads the primary output (tracked redirect URL) and appends the secondary requirement. No filler, though it is on the terse side.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return values; it does name both the URL and disclosure_text. However, for a 3-parameter tool it leaves the link's lifecycle (expiry, single-use) and auth expectations unstated, making it only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so agent_id, offer_id, and context are all documented in the schema (including the 'offer_id from search_offers' provenance). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get a tracked redirect URL for an offer) and even names the secondary artifact returned (disclosure_text). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling search_offers.

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 clause about disclosure_text being something you 'MUST show the user' implies this is the follow-on step after selecting an offer, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs search_offers guidance or stated prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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