affiliate_impact-advertiser_verify_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool makes a network call ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'), returns a structured response ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and uses preconfigured credentials. It implies non-mutating behavior through the verb 'verify', though it does not explicitly state that no data is modified. It also does not explain the role of the 'brand' parameter in selecting credentials, which is a minor gap.

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 serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, and return value. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and there is no wordiness or redundant information. Every sentence earns its place in the description.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core context: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It even mentions a complementary tool for fuller diagnostics. However, it omits an explanation of the 'brand' parameter, which is the only required input, leaving a completeness gap.

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 input schema has only one required parameter 'brand' with no description (schema description coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does not mention 'brand' at all, leaving the agent to infer that it identifies which Impact advertiser brand to verify. Given the low schema coverage, this is a clear gap in parameter semantics.

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 Impact (advertiser) are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' This specifies the action (verify), the resource (credentials for Impact advertiser), and the method (minimal endpoint). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting 'Impact (advertiser)' and contrasting with the full health check '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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also clarifies the alternative: 'pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check,' indicating this tool is a lightweight quick check rather than a comprehensive diagnostic.

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