affiliate_affiliate-future_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the behavior (calling a minimal authenticated endpoint) and the return format ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). It implies read-only verification but does not explicitly state it has no side effects, which would be a slight improvement.

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 concise sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage timing, return values, and a cross-reference. No word is wasted.

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 simple zero-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to a sibling diagnostic tool. No critical information 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds useful context by mentioning 'configured credentials,' clarifying that credentials are not passed as arguments but are pre-configured.

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 Affiliate Future credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from other network-specific verify_auth tools by naming the network and the check action.

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 guidance is provided: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also points to affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, offering a clear alternative.

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