affiliate_tradedoubler-advertiser_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the mechanism (minimal authenticated endpoint) and the return format ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), which gives a good sense of behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether any side effects are involved, though the verify operation implies a read-only safe check.

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 that front-load the core purpose, then provide usage guidance and return format. Every clause adds value with no redundant 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?

The return value and usage scenarios are well covered, but the required `brand` parameter is not explained, and there are no annotations to compensate. This is a notable gap for a tool that otherwise is quite complete for a simple verify auth operation.

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 parameter, `brand`, is required but completely undocumented in both the schema (0% coverage) and the description. The description never mentions the parameter or how to determine its value, leaving the agent without guidance for a required input.

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 Tradedoubler (Advertiser) credentials by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint. It specifies the exact resource and action, and naturally distinguishes itself from sibling verify_auth tools for other networks.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or on auth errors. It also mentions pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, providing a clear complementary alternative.

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