affiliate_belboon_verify_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the response shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and implies a read-only check through the word 'verify,' but it does not explicitly state side effects or authorization requirements. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the minimal schema, but could be more explicit about non-mutating behavior.

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, each adding distinct value: purpose, usage timing, and return format with pairing advice. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to the diagnostic tool. There is no missing critical information that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking this tool effectively.

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 per the rubric. The description mentions no parameter-related details, but none are needed. It does add context that the tool calls a 'minimal authenticated endpoint,' which indirectly implies no configuration beyond the already-set credentials.

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's function: 'Verify the configured credentials for Belboon are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' It identifies the specific network (Belboon), the action (verify credentials), and the mechanism (minimal authenticated endpoint), effectively distinguishing it from the many other verify_auth sibling 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?

Explicit usage scenarios are provided: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also recommends pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus a related alternative.

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