generate_affiliate_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: it never publishes (a side-effect guarantee), it refuses to operate against fixtures, and it requires a verified official operation with the expected account reference — useful operational context not present in the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the operative verb and its main constraint come first. It is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic ('Fixtures recusam geração'), but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the annotations cover the basic safety profile. Still, with three required parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough on parameter meaning and does not address the singular-vs-batch choice among siblings.

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 carries the full burden. It hints at two of the three parameters ('referência de conta esperada', 'subIDs explícitos') but says nothing about origin_url, nor about constraints such as the 1–5 subID limit or the allowed character pattern, leaving a required parameter semantically undefined.

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+resource ('Gera link') and constrains it to an official verified operation keyed to an expected account reference with explicit subIDs. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling generate_affiliate_links_batch, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when the singular tool is preferred over the batch variant.

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 constraints 'SOMENTE via operação oficial verificada' and 'Nunca publica' imply the intended usage context (official, non-publishing path), and 'Fixtures recusam geração' flags test data as a non-starter. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing and no routing to the batch sibling, leaving alternatives to inference.

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