affiliate_firstpromoter_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 that the tool calls a minimal authenticated endpoint (implying a non-destructive read-only operation) and details the response format as {ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}. While it doesn't discuss side effects, the nature of a verification endpoint makes this reasonably transparent.

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 earning its place: purpose, usage triggers, and return shape plus a pairing suggestion. It is front-loaded, concise, and free of 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and return shape, which is good for a simple tool, but the required 'brand' parameter is entirely unexplained, and there is no output schema to fill the gap. This prevents the description from being fully complete for reliable invocation.

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 only required parameter 'brand' is completely undocumented in both the schema (no description) and the tool description (no mention). With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but does not, leaving the agent with no guidance on what 'brand' means or how to populate it.

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 verifies FirstPromoter credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling auth verification tools for other networks. It also mentions the return shape, reinforcing the purpose with a specific verb and resource.

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?

It explicitly gives usage scenarios: at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or after an auth error, and suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check. This provides clear when-to-use context and points to a complementary alternative.

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