affiliate_partnerize_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and delivers: it explains that an authenticated endpoint is called, and describes the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). It stops short of explicitly stating side-effect-freeness or rate-limit behavior, but for a verification tool this is sufficient behavioral context.

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 with a logical flow: purpose first, then usage triggers, then return format. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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 has zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete for an agent: it states what it verifies, when to use it, what it returns (with optional identity), and how it relates to diagnostics. Nothing critical is missing for safe 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 100% schema coverage is vacuous. The baseline for no params is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter docs, though it also doesn't add any clarifying notes about config or environment.

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 verifies Partnerize credentials by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint. This is a specific verb (verify) with a specific resource (Partnerize credentials), and it is immediately distinguishable from the many sibling verify_auth tools for other networks.

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 guidance is provided: use at start of session, after key rotation, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also points to a complementary tool (affiliate_run_diagnostic) for a full health check, making the usage context very clear.

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