affiliate_awin-advertiser_verify_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the mechanism (minimal authenticated endpoint), the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and the relationship to the diagnostic tool. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, but the nature of a verification call implies read-only behavior, and the described outputs are sufficient for an auth check.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage timing, and return/companion. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids 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 simple verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to a fuller diagnostic. The only notable gap is the lack of explanation for the 'brand' parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 (0% coverage), and the tool description never mentions 'brand' or explains what values it expects. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory but the description adds zero value for parameter semantics. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 states a specific action ('Verify the configured credentials for Awin (advertiser) are valid') with a clear resource (Awin advertiser credentials) and method (calling a minimal authenticated endpoint). It distinguishes itself from sibling verify_auth tools by explicitly naming the Awin network and advertiser variant.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also points to an alternative/complement: 'pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check.' This fully satisfies the dimension.

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