affiliate_coupang-partners_verify_auth

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the return contract ('{ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}'), indicates it calls a minimal endpoint, and implies no side effects. It stops short of explicitly stating non-destructiveness, but the phrase 'minimal authenticated endpoint' strongly suggests it, and the return format is well-specified.

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 serve a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. No filler or redundant information; the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately gives actionable usage guidance.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage timing, and return shape. It also makes the relationship to affiliate_run_diagnostic clear, and the sibling context of many network-specific verify_auth tools is handled by the explicit 'Coupang Partners' naming. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 appropriately omits parameter details because none exist, and the input schema confirms no parameters. No compensation 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Verify'), the resource ('configured credentials for Coupang Partners'), and the mechanism ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). It distinguishes itself from other network verify_auth tools by naming the network, and from affiliate_run_diagnostic by positioning itself as the auth-specific check.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also mentions pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, offering a clear alternative and broader context.

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