affiliate_impact_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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return payload ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and implies a read-only, non-mutating check via 'verify' and 'minimal authenticated endpoint.' However, it does not explicitly state there are no side effects or describe potential errors beyond the reason field, leaving some gaps for a no-annotation scenario.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant wording. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 covers the essential aspects: purpose, method, usage timing, return value on success and failure, and the relationship to a diagnostic tool. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool with confidence, and it explains the edge cases of credential rotation and auth errors.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds useful context by referencing 'configured credentials,' clarifying that the tool operates on pre-existing configuration rather than inputs. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description meets it without needing to explain individual parameters.

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 specific action ('Verify the configured credentials for Impact are valid') and the method ('by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). It distinguishes itself from sibling verify_auth tools by naming Impact, and it mentions the return format, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also references the complementary tool affiliate_run_diagnostic for full health checks, giving an implicit alternative and context for when this tool is insufficient.

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