affiliate_ebay_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and that the call is minimal, which is transparent for a verification tool. It stops short of explicitly stating non-destructiveness or potential side effects, but the semantics imply a safe read 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage timing, and return value with a note on pairing. Front-loaded and free of wasted words.

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 is complete: it explains the operation, when to invoke it, what to expect as output, and how it relates to the diagnostic tool. No gaps are evident.

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 is empty, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs, and no parameter documentation 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying configured credentials for eBay Partner Network via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific network and contrasting with the broader health check (affiliate_run_diagnostic).

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: at session start, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. Also names an alternative/complementary tool (affiliate_run_diagnostic) for a full health check, providing clear context for selection.

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