affiliate_everflow_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 call type ('minimal authenticated endpoint'), the return contract ('{ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}'), and expected use cases. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only with no side effects, but the 'minimal authenticated endpoint' wording implies a safe check.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, one for when to use, one for return format and complementary tool. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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 verification tool, the description covers the purpose, usage triggers, return value, and pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by referencing 'configured credentials' but does not need to explain parameter behavior since none exist.

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 'Verify the configured credentials for Everflow are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' It has a specific verb ('verify'), a specific resource ('credentials for Everflow'), and the method. Among many sibling *_verify_auth tools, naming 'Everflow' directly distinguishes it.

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 usage guidance is provided: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also directs to affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, clarifying when this tool is the right choice versus an alternative.

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