affiliate_awin_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and describes the call as minimal, which implies low risk. It stops short of explicitly stating there are no side effects or rate limits, but for a simple auth check this is strong.

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 are dense and efficient. The first sentence states the action, the second gives usage triggers, the third describes the return value—no wasted words.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, invocation triggers, and expected response format. It is self-contained and complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on the operation and response.

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?

Description clearly states the tool verifies Awin credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint. The specific verb 'verify' plus resource 'Awin credentials' distinguishes it from the many sibling verify_auth tools for other networks.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: at session start, after key rotation, or after auth errors. Also recommends pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, providing clear contextual guidance.

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