affiliate_commission-factory_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns {ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}') and implies a non-mutating check via 'verify' and 'minimal authenticated endpoint.' It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but the semantics strongly suggest a safe read-only operation.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage context, then return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 fully covers purpose, when to use, return behavior, and relationship to a sibling tool. It is self-contained and leaves no important gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description has nothing to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; no further param information is 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Verify the configured credentials for Commission Factory are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verify_auth tools by naming the network, and from other operations by specifying the verification action.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also distinguishes from affiliate_run_diagnostic by recommending pairing for a full health check, implying this is a focused auth check.

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