affiliate_eduzz_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and mentions calling a minimal authenticated endpoint, implying a lightweight network operation. It doesn't explicitly state side effects or safety (e.g., non-destructive), but for an auth verification tool the return format and purpose are the most critical behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage timing and return format. No filler or repetition; every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the mechanism, return value, when to use it, and even references a sibling tool for a more comprehensive check. There are no obvious gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 an empty schema, so schema coverage is complete. The description adds useful context by noting that it checks 'configured credentials,' implying the tool uses pre-existing configuration rather than taking input. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 that configured Eduzz credentials are valid via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('configured credentials for Eduzz'), and the naming convention distinguishes it from sibling verify_auth tools for other networks.

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 provides when to use the tool: at session start, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also names a complementary tool (affiliate_run_diagnostic) and indicates this tool is for quick auth verification while the diagnostic is for full health checks, offering clear context vs alternatives.

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