affiliate_monetizze_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the operation (calls an authenticated endpoint), the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and the optional identity field. It doesn't explicitly state it's non-mutating, but the auth-check nature strongly implies it.

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 densely informative: purpose, when to use, return format, and companion tool. No filler 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 zero-parameter auth verification tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it explains what it does, when to invoke it, what it returns, and how it relates to a fuller diagnostic. Complete for agent selection and 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema already communicates this. The description adds no param-specific meaning, but with 0 params the baseline of 4 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?

States a clear, specific action: verify configured Monetizze credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It distinguishes itself from other network-specific verify_auth tools by naming the resource (Monetizze) and the lightweight nature (minimal endpoint).

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 gives usage scenarios: at session start, after key rotation, or on auth errors. It also points to affiliate_run_diagnostic as a companion for a full health check, clarifying the relationship to an alternative tool.

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