affiliate_profitshare_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 action (calling a minimal authenticated endpoint) and gives the exact return shape: '{ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}'. It doesn't explicitly state side-effect freedom, but 'verify' and 'minimal authenticated endpoint' imply a non-mutating check.

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: purpose, usage timing, and return/relationship to run_diagnostic. No filler, front-loaded with the core action.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what it does, when to use it, the return shape, and how it relates to the diagnostic sibling. The agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 empty schema carries full coverage; per rubric, 0 params baselines at 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, but it does describe the output contract, which is useful.

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 'Verify the configured credentials for Profitshare are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint', naming a specific verb, resource (Profitshare credentials), and method. It clearly distinguishes from sibling network-specific verify_auth tools by explicitly naming Profitshare.

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 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 points to affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, contrasting a focused auth verification with a broader diagnostic.

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