affiliate_everflow-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. It discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and indicates the call is minimal, implying low impact. It does not explicitly state side-effect safety, but the nature of a credential check strongly implies read-only behavior.

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: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded, concise, and free of 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 simple verification tool with one required parameter, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, return format, and relationships to other tools. The only missing context is the meaning of 'brand', which limits overall 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 zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'brand' means or how it's used, leaving the agent to guess whether it's a network name, account ID, or credential key. This is a critical gap since the parameter is required and its semantics are entirely absent.

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 explicitly states the tool verifies Everflow (Advertiser) credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('credentials'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling verification tools for other networks and from general tools like 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also names a complementary tool (affiliate_run_diagnostic) and describes when to use that instead, offering clear guidance on alternatives.

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