affiliate_value-commerce-advertiser_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool calls a minimal authenticated endpoint and returns {ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}, which is good insight into behavior. It does not mention rate limits or detailed error handling, but for a read-only verification tool this is adequate.

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 well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only relevant information. No redundancy or extraneous 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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage timing, return shape, and relationship to the diagnostic tool. The missing brand parameter semantics is the only notable gap, but otherwise the description is complete for a verification tool.

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 schema has one required parameter, 'brand', with no description, and the description does not mention it at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent has no guidance on what value to provide for 'brand', making invocation ambiguous.

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: verifying configured ValueCommerce (advertiser) credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('credentials'), and distinguishes itself from sibling verify_auth tools by explicitly naming the network and advertiser mode.

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 guidance is provided: use at session start, after key rotation, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also recommends pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, giving clear context and a complementary alternative.

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