affiliate_cj_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 and responds well by disclosing the return shape ('{ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}') and the nature of the call ('minimal authenticated endpoint'). It implies a read-only verification operation but does not explicitly state 'no side effects,' which could be slightly more transparent.

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: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description includes return format and practical usage contexts. It sufficiently covers the tool's behavior for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly, including how it fits into a broader health-check workflow.

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 takes no parameters, so the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and focuses on the configured credentials, which are presumably set elsewhere. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('configured credentials for CJ Affiliate'), clearly distinguishing it from the many sibling verify_auth tools for other networks. It also explains the mechanism ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description explicitly provides when-to-use scenarios: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also names an alternative/complementary tool ('pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check'), offering clear decision guidance.

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