affiliate_involve-asia_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, and it delivers useful behavioral details: it calls a minimal authenticated endpoint and returns either {ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}. This discloses the response shape and effect (verification). It could add explicit side-effect safety (e.g., 'no data is modified'), but for a verify operation the behavior is adequately transparent.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by usage timing, return format, and a pointer to a related tool. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition of schema details. It is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description is complete: it states what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to affiliate_run_diagnostic. It provides enough context for an agent to select and call this tool appropriately without missing key details.

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 in the schema, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no conflicting parameter info and focuses on purpose and return values, which is appropriate.

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's function: verifying Involve Asia credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('configured credentials for Involve Asia'), and the mention of pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic distinguishes it from a broader health check. It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from sibling verify_auth tools.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also names an alternative/complementary tool (affiliate_run_diagnostic) for a fuller health check, offering clear when-to-use and contextual alternatives. This goes beyond a generic explanation.

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