affiliate_adtraction_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool calls a minimal authenticated endpoint, returns {ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}, and implies a read-only verification behavior. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or side-effect-free, but the verify nature and return shape provide sufficient transparency for this simple 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose; the second condenses usage timing, return shape, and pairing with a diagnostic tool. Every clause earns its place.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, what it returns (both success and failure shapes), and how it relates to affiliate_run_diagnostic. No critical gaps remain.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about 'configured credentials' but no parameter details are needed. No additional explanation is required given the empty input schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Verify the configured credentials for Adtraction are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming 'Adtraction' and the verification purpose, separating it from the many other network-specific verify_auth tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also mentions an alternative: 'pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check', clarifying when a more comprehensive approach is appropriate.

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