affiliate_levanta_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 explains the behavior: calls a minimal authenticated endpoint and returns either {ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}, including the optional identity field and failure reason. It doesn't explicitly state non-mutation, but verification inherently implies no destructive side effects.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage timing, and return format with pairing advice. No redundant or filler content.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to a diagnostic sibling. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100% vacuous. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds context about using 'configured credentials' but no parameter-specific explanation 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify the configured credentials for Levanta are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' It clearly states what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from sibling verify_auth tools by naming Levanta and describing the lightweight verification mechanism.

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 explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also clarifies relationship to the alternative 'affiliate_run_diagnostic' by suggesting pairing for a full health check, giving clear context for selection.

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