affiliate_addrevenue_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the call to a minimal authenticated endpoint, the return value shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and failure mode. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or could have side effects like consuming rate limits, but the 'verify' nature and 'minimal endpoint' phrasing imply a safe, non-mutating check.

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 serving a distinct purpose: purpose, when to use, and return value/complementary tool. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It even points to a related tool for broader diagnostics, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke confidently.

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 description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed. Per the scoring rule, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior and usage instead of non-existent parameters.

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 that configured Addrevenue credentials are valid via a minimal authenticated endpoint. This distinguishes it from the many sibling verify_auth tools by naming the specific network (Addrevenue) and specifying the exact action (verify).

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 scenarios are provided: start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also mentions pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, giving a clear alternative/complement.

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