affiliate_digistore24_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 mechanism (minimal authenticated endpoint), the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and the context. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects,' but the nature of a verify operation implies non-mutating behavior, making this reasonably 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 contributing value: purpose/method, usage triggers, and return/complementary pairing. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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 simple zero-parameter verify tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and its relation to affiliate_run_diagnostic. It doesn't detail the contents of 'identity?' or possible 'reason' values, but for this simple tool, that is an acceptable minor gap.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 params. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are 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 the tool's purpose: 'Verify the configured credentials for Digistore24 are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' It uses a specific verb (verify), names the resource (credentials for Digistore24), and distinguishes itself from sibling verify_auth tools by specifying the network.

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 provides explicit usage triggers: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the triggers and complementary tool guidance are clear.

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