affiliate_adservice_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the mechanism (calling a minimal authenticated endpoint) and returns structure ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), giving sufficient transparency. It could explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'verify' and 'minimal endpoint' strongly imply no side effects.

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?

Two sentences: the first states purpose and mechanism, the second covers usage timing and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool, this description is complete: it specifies what is verified, when to use it, what is returned, and how it relates to a broader diagnostic. No output schema exists, but the return shape is described. It fully covers the essentials.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and return format, which goes beyond the empty schema. There are no parameters to document, so this is fully adequate.

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 verifies Adservice credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint, using a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('credentials for Adservice'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like affiliate_adtraction_verify_auth and operational tools like affiliate_adservice_list_programmes.

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 prescribes when to use ('at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error') and even suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check. This provides clear context and differentiates from other verification tools.

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