affiliate_amazon-creators_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation's nature (a verification call to a minimal endpoint), implies read-only behavior, and specifies the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). It does not explicitly state 'no side effects' but the purpose and phrasing make the safety profile clear.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: statement of function, usage timing, and return format with a cross-reference. No wasted words, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, when to use, return format, and a related tool. It gives the agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds context about the implicit 'configured credentials' being tested, which is useful beyond the empty schema. No parameter-specific details are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('configured credentials for Amazon Creators'), and clarifies it does so via a minimal authenticated endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verify_auth tools for other networks and from affiliate_run_diagnostic.

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 usage contexts: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also names a complementary alternative (affiliate_run_diagnostic) for full health checks, giving the agent clear when-to-use guidance.

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