affiliate_kwanko_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the call type (minimal authenticated endpoint), the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and implies read-only verification. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but the verification semantics are clear enough for a minimal 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 adding distinct value: purpose, usage triggers, and return format plus companion tool. No redundancy or fluff; front-loaded with the core action.

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, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, and what to expect as output. It also positions itself within the broader diagnostics workflow, making it contextually complete.

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 input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameters for the description to elaborate. Baseline 4 applies since the description adds no parameter-specific information but none is needed.

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: verify that configured Kwanko credentials are valid. It specifies the resource (Kwanko credentials) and the method (minimal authenticated endpoint), and distinguishes it from other network-specific verify_auth tools by naming Kwanko.

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 usage guidance is given: use at start of session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also recommends pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, clarifying the relationship to an alternative.

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