affiliate_webgains-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 contract ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and the fact that it calls a minimal endpoint. It falls short of detailing side effects, rate limits, or error conditions beyond the return shape.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidance and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return values. However, the unexplained 'brand' parameter is a notable gap, and the absence of any description of parameter semantics leaves the tool incomplete for an agent.

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 'brand' parameter is required but has zero schema documentation. The description never mentions 'brand' or explains how it identifies the credential set, failing to compensate for the schema gap. The meaning is only indirectly inferable from the tool name.

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 Webgains (advertiser) credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint. The verb 'Verify' and specific resource differentiate it from sibling tools, including the Webgains publisher verify tool.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: at start of session, after rotating keys, or on auth errors. It also suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, providing a clear alternative for that use case.

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