affiliate_afilio_verify_auth

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mechanism ('minimal authenticated endpoint') and return shape ('{ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}'), covering success/error behavior. It doesn't mention side effects or rate limits, but for a verify tool this is sufficient.

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: the first states the primary purpose and mechanism, the second covers usage timing and return format. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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 0-param, no-output-schema tool, the description completely covers what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and related tools. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 correctly implies no input is needed beyond configured credentials, matching the empty 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 clearly states 'Verify the configured credentials for Afilio are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' It uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('configured credentials for Afilio'), and differentiates from sibling verify_auth tools by naming the network.

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: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also mentions pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic as an alternative/complementary tool, offering clear context for selection.

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