affiliate_flexoffers_verify_auth

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return contract ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and mentions the endpoint is minimal and authenticated. It could explicitly state that this is a read-only/safe operation, but the 'verify' verb and minimal endpoint imply this. The return shape adds useful behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences pack in purpose, usage scenarios, return format, and tool relationship. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded. No filler or 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to the diagnostic tool, giving the agent enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly omits param details. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Verify', names the resource 'configured credentials for FlexOffers', and specifies the mechanism 'minimal authenticated endpoint'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling verify_auth tools by naming FlexOffers and differentiates from health-check tools by referencing 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also contrasts with affiliate_run_diagnostic by recommending pairing with it for a full health check, making the tool's scope clear.

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