affiliate_commission-factory-advertiser_verify_auth

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It explains the tool calls a 'minimal authenticated endpoint' and describes the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). This conveys a lightweight, read-only check, though it does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or 'no data modification.'

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 sentences with zero fluff: purpose, usage timing, and return format/pairing. Front-loaded with the action and resource, every sentence earns its place.

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 auth verification tool, the description covers purpose, when to use, return values, and relationship to diagnostics. The only notable gap is the undefined 'brand' parameter, but the low complexity and explicit return shape keep it reasonably complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the sole parameter 'brand', and the description does not explain what 'brand' refers to or how it should be formatted. Given that the tool targets Commission Factory advertiser, 'brand' is likely the advertiser brand identifier, but this is only inferable from the tool name, not described.

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 'Verify the configured credentials for Commission Factory (advertiser) are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' The verb 'verify' and resource 'credentials for Commission Factory (advertiser)' are specific and distinguish this from other network-specific verify_auth tools and affiliate_run_diagnostic.

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 provided: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also mentions pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, giving an alternative.

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