generate_affiliate_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Generate a tracked affiliate link' and 'No payment required,' but omits details on idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The constraint on vendor type is only in the schema, not integrated into the description.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and structurally efficient.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and a key constraint (no payment). However, without annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like mutability or error conditions, which affects completeness for an agent to use 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; it mentions 'No payment required' but does not elaborate on how that relates to parameters. The schema descriptions are adequate but minimal.

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 generates a tracked affiliate link and specifies vendor types ('referral-link or query-param-link vendor'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'call_affiliate_product' or 'estimate_commission'.

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 includes the note 'No payment required,' which provides a condition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'call_affiliate_product' or 'get_best_route.' Some guidance is present in the schema (vendor_id must be link-based), but not in the description itself.

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