affiliate_hotmart_verify_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a network call to a minimal endpoint and describes the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), which is valuable. It doesn't mention potential side effects, latency, or rate limits, but for a verify_auth tool this is adequate.

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: the first states purpose and mechanism, the second covers usage and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format. It even suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for more thorough health checks, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the schema already indicates an empty object.

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 verifies Hotmart credentials by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint. It names the specific network (Hotmart) and uses a specific verb ('verify'), distinguishing it from other network-specific verify_auth tools like affiliate_adtraction_verify_auth.

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' scenarios: start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. Also names a complementary tool (affiliate_run_diagnostic) for a full health check, giving the agent clear context for choosing this tool vs alternatives.

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