affiliate_adcell_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a minimal authenticated call, describes the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and implies non-destructive verification. It does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free, but the verify semantics cover this well.

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, each with a distinct function: purpose/mechanism, when to use, and expected return plus complementary tool. No fluff or repetition.

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 health-check tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to run it, what it returns, and how it relates to the broader diagnostic tool. Nothing important is missing.

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 there is nothing to document. The 100% schema coverage baseline for zero params is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter discussion.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('configured credentials for Adcell'), and distinguishes from sibling verify_auth tools by naming the network. It also clarifies the mechanism ('minimal authenticated endpoint').

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 lists when to use: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' Also names the alternative/complement: 'pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check,' providing clear usage boundaries.

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