affiliate_daisycon_verify_auth

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and describes the call as 'minimal authenticated endpoint,' implying no side effects. It could have explicitly stated read-only/safe behavior, but the nature of a verify operation makes this adequate.

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, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, no filler or repetition. Every clause adds value: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to a complementary tool.

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 verify tool, the description is complete. It states purpose, usage timing, return format, and relationship to the diagnostic tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details (there are none to add), and the schema already reflects an empty parameter set. Nothing further 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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('configured credentials for Daisycon') and clearly differentiates from numerous sibling verify_auth tools by naming the network and the action. It also explains the mechanism ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint').

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 points to an alternative/complement: 'pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check.'

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