affiliate_indoleads_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), the minimal endpoint call, and the complementary diagnostic use. It doesn't explicitly say there are no side effects, but the verb 'verify' and minimal-endpoint description imply a safe read-only 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: 'what' in the first, 'when' in the second, and 'output/alternative' in the third. No filler, tautology, 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 parameterless verification tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, trigger conditions, return value format, and relationship to the diagnostic tool. The return shape is documented in prose, mitigating the lack of an output schema.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage by default. The description adds context by explaining the tool uses pre-configured credentials, which is relevant because there are no parameters to pass. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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?

States a specific action (Verify) on a specific resource (configured credentials for Indoleads) via a minimal authenticated endpoint. Clearly distinguishes from sibling verify_auth tools for other networks and from 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?

Explicitly lists when to use: at session start, after rotating keys, or after an auth error. Also points to affiliate_run_diagnostic as the alternative for a full health check, providing both timing and exclusion guidance.

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