affiliate_rakuten_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it calls a minimal authenticated endpoint and describes the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). This is good transparency, though it doesn't detail potential side effects, rate limits, or the meaning of 'identity' beyond the basic return structure.

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, when to use, and return shape plus pairing. Front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no parameters, the description provides the return contract and context of use. It also mentions the sibling tool for comprehensive diagnostics, making it complete for a 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 baseline is 4. The description correctly says nothing about parameters since there are none. It implicitly adds value by focusing on the auth verification purpose rather than any parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and names the exact resource ('configured credentials for Rakuten Advertising') and method ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many sibling verify_auth tools by explicitly naming Rakuten Advertising.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also contrasts with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, giving a clear alternative.

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