affiliate_accesstrade_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It specifies the exact return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and implies a lightweight, read-only operation. It doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects, but the nature of a credential verification makes this reasonable.

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 focused sentences deliver purpose, usage timing, and return format without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the core action and earns every word.

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, no-output-schema auth checker, the description covers the operation, when to invoke it, and the response structure. It also contextualizes the relationship with the diagnostic tool, making it complete for an agent to select and call correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about 'configured credentials' but doesn't introduce parameter-level semantics because none exist. It appropriately avoids inventing fields.

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 AccessTrade credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling verify_auth tools by naming the specific network and from affiliate_run_diagnostic by framing this as a targeted check.

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: use at session start, after key rotation, or on auth errors. It also points to affiliate_run_diagnostic as the complementary option for a full health check, giving clear context for when to prefer this tool.

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