Get buy link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the parenthetical '(affiliate)', which hints at monetization context but says nothing about link lifetime, redirect behavior, required auth, or rate limits — little value beyond structured fields.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource and key are front-loaded. It is efficient, though there is so little content that efficiency verges on under-specification.

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 an openWorld affiliate-link tool with an undocumented second parameter and no output schema, the description leaves an agent guessing about ref provenance, sub_id purpose, and the link's form. Annotations cover read safety only, so the description should do substantially more.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it only names `ref` and never explains what a ref is or where to obtain it. The second parameter `sub_id` is not mentioned at all, leaving an affiliate sub-tracking argument completely undocumented.

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 ('Return ... link for one product') and names the lookup key (`ref`), so an agent can tell it apart from search_products and compare_products. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus search_products, compare_products, or dealfinder_status, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a ref from a prior search). The implied workflow is left entirely to inference.

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