affiliate_partnerstack-advertiser_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral aspects: it calls a minimal authenticated endpoint and returns a structured result ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). This clearly communicates the read-only verification nature and expected outcome.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds essential context: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. No redundant or filler content.

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 and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, return value, and relationship to a diagnostic tool. The only significant omission is the lack of any explanation of the 'brand' parameter, which prevents full standalone usability.

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 one required parameter, 'brand', with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'brand' at all, leaving its meaning, format, or relationship to the credentials entirely unexplained.

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: to verify configured PartnerStack (advertiser) credentials through a minimal authenticated endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., publisher variant or other network verifications) and from broader diagnostic tools.

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 guidance is provided for when to use the tool: at session start, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also names an alternative/complementary tool (affiliate_run_diagnostic) for a full health check, effectively clarifying scoping.

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