affiliate_refersion_verify_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format ('Returns {ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}') and describes the call as 'minimal authenticated endpoint,' implying a lightweight, non-mutating request. It doesn't explicitly state the absence of side effects or rate-limit behavior, but for a simple auth verification the disclosure is strong.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage guidance and return contract. Every sentence contributes value with no redundant content. Ideal structure for a simple verification tool.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema) and the description covers purpose, when-to-use, and return value. However, it omits any explanation of the 'brand' parameter, which is essential for correct invocation. This gap prevents the description from being fully complete, though the rest of the context is sufficient.

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 a single required parameter 'brand' with zero description coverage, and the description never mentions this parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but fails to explain what 'brand' refers to (likely a Refersion brand/account). The agent is left to guess the parameter's purpose, making this a clear gap.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Verify the configured credentials for Refersion are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' It explicitly names Refersion, distinguishing it from sibling verify_auth tools for other networks. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also points to an alternative/complement: 'pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check.' This fully covers usage context.

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