affiliate_affilae_verify_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and indicates this is a minimal authenticated endpoint. It does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating or safe, but the verify semantics and minimal endpoint strongly imply that. The mention of pairing with run_diagnostic clarifies scope.

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: purpose, usage triggers, and return contract. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy or fluff.

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 provides all necessary context: purpose, when to use, what the response looks like, and how it relates to the 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 is empty with zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vocabulary), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it focuses instead on behavior and usage.

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 configured Affilae credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint, with a specific verb ('verify'), resource ('configured credentials for Affilae'), and method. This distinguishes it from sibling verify_auth tools for other networks and from broader diagnostic 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?

The description gives explicit usage contexts: start of a session, after key rotation, or when an auth error occurs. It also mentions pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare to other network-specific verify_auth tools, so it falls just short of the full 5.

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