affiliate_partnerstack_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 the mechanism ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint') and the exact return shape ('{ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}'). It stops short of explicitly stating read-only/no side effects, but 'verify' plus the minimal-endpoint framing 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 earning its place: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything essential: purpose, usage timing, return format, and relationship to the full diagnostic tool. Nothing critical 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, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds mild value by confirming credentials are pre-configured ('configured credentials') rather than passed as arguments, which is useful for an agent deciding what to supply.

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+resource: 'Verify the configured credentials for PartnerStack are valid.' The PartnerStack prefix distinguishes it from the many sibling verify_auth tools for other networks, and 'minimal authenticated endpoint' distinguishes it from the heavier affiliate_run_diagnostic.

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 gives explicit timing: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also names a concrete alternative: 'pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check,' clarifying when this lighter tool is appropriate.

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