affiliate_kwanko-advertiser_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), implies low cost ('minimal authenticated endpoint'), and clarifies this is not a full health check. It could add more about potential side effects or error details, but for an auth check it is 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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and mechanism, the second gives usage timing and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 verify tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return shape, and relationship to a diagnostic tool. The only notable gap is the missing explanation of the 'brand' parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 required 'brand' parameter is completely unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to define what 'brand' means (e.g., brand ID, name, or account identifier), but it does not. This forces the agent to infer or guess the parameter's purpose, which is a significant deficiency.

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 Kwanko (advertiser) credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'advertiser' and from other networks by naming Kwanko.

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?

Explicit usage timing is provided: '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 as an alternative/complement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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