affiliate_admitad_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that the tool calls a minimal authenticated endpoint and discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), implying a non-mutating check. However, it does not mention potential side effects, auth failure behavior, or whether credentials are required to be pre-configured—though this is implied.

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 and front-loads the purpose, then use cases, then return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, expected return values, and how it relates to a sibling tool (affiliate_run_diagnostic). No significant gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; baseline for 0 parameters is 4. It correctly indicates the tool uses 'configured credentials' rather than taking parameters.

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 verb ('Verify') and resource ('configured credentials for Admitad') and specifies the method ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). It distinguishes itself from sibling verify_auth tools by naming the network explicitly (Admitad) and from general diagnostic tools by its focused action.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, which acts as an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when full diagnostics needed).

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