affiliate_cj-advertiser_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the return format: '{ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}'. It also mentions the call is to a 'minimal authenticated endpoint', implying low-overhead read-only behavior. However, it does not elaborate on what 'identity' contains or mention any error specifics beyond 'reason'.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return format. Every sentence adds unique value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. The only notable omission is the meaning of 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 input schema has one required 'brand' parameter with no description (coverage 0%), and the description does not explain or even mention it. The agent is left to infer what 'brand' represents (e.g., brand ID, brand name) without guidance, which is a significant 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 clearly states the tool validates CJ Affiliate (advertiser) credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint, using a specific verb ('Verify') and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the network and advertiser variant, and from affiliate_run_diagnostic by positioning it as a lighter check.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also provides an alternative by recommending pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, making the scope clear.

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