affiliate_offer18_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation is a minimal authentication call, provides the exact return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and indicates it relies on configured credentials. This goes beyond a basic description, though it does not detail failure modes or network 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 concise—two sentences—with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and method, the second covers usage timing and output format. Every clause earns its place.

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 complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to a larger diagnostic tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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, and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool uses 'configured credentials,' implicitly explaining why no parameters are 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 uses a specific verb ('Verify'), identifies the exact resource ('configured credentials for Offer18'), and explains the mechanism ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many network-specific verify_auth siblings by naming Offer18 and describing its purpose.

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 states when to use this tool: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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