affiliate_adtraction-advertiser_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the verification behavior, that it calls a minimal endpoint, and the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). This is solid, though it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, which would have pushed it to 5.

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 concise sentences deliver purpose, usage timing, return values, and a cross-reference to a related tool. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, trigger conditions, and response format. It falls short only by omitting the meaning of the 'brand' parameter, which is needed for full completeness.

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 one required parameter 'brand' with no description, and description coverage is 0%. The description never explains what 'brand' means or how it relates to the verified credentials, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific action (verify credentials) applied to a specific resource (Adtraction advertiser) via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling affiliate_adtraction_verify_auth by explicitly scoping to the advertiser role.

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 when-to-use guidance: at session start, after key rotation, or on auth errors. It also names a complementary tool (affiliate_run_diagnostic) for a full health check, which helps with tool selection.

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