affiliate_partnero_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool calls a minimal authenticated endpoint and describes the exact return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). This is reasonably transparent, though it could mention whether the tool makes network calls or has 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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage timing, and the third describes the return and related tool. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, and a related diagnostic tool. It is largely complete, but the lack of brand parameter explanation is a small gap given the schema provides no description.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter 'brand'. The description does not explain what 'brand' refers to, leaving the agent to infer from context that it identifies the Partnero configuration to verify. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 purpose: verifying Partnero credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It uses a specific verb+resource construction and is distinct from sibling verify_auth tools for other networks by explicitly naming Partnero.

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 states when to use the 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 context and an alternative.

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