affiliate_admitad-advertiser_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return format ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and characterizes the call as 'minimal authenticated endpoint', implying a lightweight, read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or permissions, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences with clean front-loading: purpose, usage contexts, and return behavior. There is no redundant information and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and return format well for a simple verify operation, but the complete omission of the required 'brand' parameter is a significant gap that prevents it from being fully self-sufficient. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should have compensated by explaining the parameter.

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 description completely omits any mention of the sole required parameter 'brand'. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on what value to provide or how it relates to the credentials being verified. This is a critical gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and identifies the exact resource ('configured credentials for Admitad (advertiser)') and method ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verify tools for other networks and from affiliate_run_diagnostic.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also recommends pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, which defines scope boundaries and alternatives.

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