affiliate_pepperjam_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and explains the minimal endpoint call and the exact return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). It does not explicitly state the operation is side-effect-free, but the nature of an auth verification is implicit; a bit more explicitness about non-destructiveness would push this to 5.

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 two sentences, with purpose, usage, return values, and the alternative tool all covered without any unnecessary prose. It is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it states what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to the diagnostic sibling. Nothing essential is missing for this simple verification tool.

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 schema is empty and the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds context about 'configured credentials' but does not need to document any parameters.

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 identifies the tool as verifying Pepperjam credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the Pepperjam-specific scope distinguishes it from the many other verify_auth sibling tools.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: at session start, after key rotation, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also contrasts with affiliate_run_diagnostic, directing users to the appropriate alternative for full health checks.

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