affiliate_flipkart_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: it performs a lightweight authenticated call and returns a structured success/failure response. It does not disclose potential side effects (though verification is inherently non-mutating) or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent enough for this simple tool.

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 serving a distinct purpose: verb+resource, usage timing, and return format with an alternative. No filler or redundancy; the most actionable info is front-loaded.

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 fully covers the purpose, the exact conditions to use it, and the expected response shape. It also situates it relative to the diagnostic sibling. No significant gaps remain.

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, so there are no semantic details to add. The description clarifies that the credentials being checked are the 'configured credentials', which gives context beyond the empty schema. This matches the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('configured credentials for Flipkart Affiliate'), and explains the mechanism ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling verify_auth tools for other networks and from the broader affiliate_run_diagnostic, which it explicitly contrasts for full health checks.

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 guidance is given: use 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 complement for a full health check, providing an evident when-to-use vs. alternative distinction.

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