affiliate_2performant_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and indicates the operation is a minimal network call. It could further mention absence of side effects or credential requirements, but the provided details are sufficient for an auth verification tool.

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 sentences, each delivering essential value: action, usage timing, return format and pairing with diagnostic. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and there is 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to the broader diagnostic tool. The sibling context reinforces that this is a network-specific auth check, which the description already makes explicit.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details; it explains the tool's purpose and return values, which is all that is needed when no parameters exist.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('configured credentials for 2Performant'), clearly distinguishing it from the many other verify_auth tools by naming the network. It also states the mechanism ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description explicitly lists when to use the tool: at start of session, after rotating keys, or after an auth error. It also names affiliate_run_diagnostic as the companion for a full health check, implicitly clarifying that this tool is a lighter, focused check and providing an alternative path.

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