affiliate_financeads_verify_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return contract ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and the nature of the call (minimal authenticated endpoint), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not explicitly state the operation has no side effects, but the read-only intent is strongly implied.

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, each earning its place: the purpose, the usage timing, and the return shape with a pointer to the diagnostic sibling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero 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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to call it, what it returns, and how it relates to affiliate_run_diagnostic. Documenting the return shape is especially important given the absence of an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4; there is no parameter information for the description to add, and it correctly doesn't invent any.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a clear resource ('configured credentials for financeAds') and a concrete method ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many sibling _verify_auth tools for other networks by naming financeAds explicitly.

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 scenarios ('at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error') and points to affiliate_run_diagnostic as an alternative for a full health check. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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