affiliate_effiliation_verify_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool calls a 'minimal authenticated endpoint' and specifies the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). It implies a non-mutating verification check but does not explicitly state read-only status or describe error/rate-limit behavior.

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 behavior plus relation to run_diagnostic. The core purpose is front-loaded, and there is zero waste.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. This is sufficient for confident invocation and fully compensates for the absent structured metadata.

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 input schema has zero parameters, giving a baseline of 4. The description usefully notes that the tool acts on 'configured credentials,' indicating that the agent need not supply credentials at runtime and that the environment handles them.

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 states 'Verify the configured credentials for Effiliation are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint' — a specific verb+resource+mechanism. The network-specific naming and explicit mention of Effiliation distinguishes it clearly from sibling verify_auth tools for other networks, and the return-value note differentiates it from the broader 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also points to affiliate_run_diagnostic as the companion for a full health check, providing clear when-to-use context and a named alternative.

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