affiliate_daisycon-advertiser_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return shape: 'Returns {ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}', and describes the call as 'minimal authenticated endpoint', implying a lightweight, non-mutating operation. It doesn't detail side effects or prerequisites beyond 'configured credentials', but for a verify tool this is adequate.

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 adding distinct value: purpose, usage timing, and return format with a pointer to a related tool. No redundant or filler content; front-loaded with the primary action.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, return format, and a related diagnostic tool. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'brand' parameter, which prevents it from being fully 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'brand' parameter. It says 'configured credentials' but does not link them to the 'brand' property or clarify what values are expected. The description adds very little semantic meaning beyond what the schema already shows (a required string).

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's purpose: 'Verify the configured credentials for Daisycon (advertiser) are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' This specifies the verb (verify), resource (Daisycon advertiser credentials), and method, distinguishing it from the many other network-specific verify_auth sibling tools.

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 timing guidance: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, giving an alternative/related tool. No explicit 'when not to use' is stated, but the positive guidance is strong.

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