affiliate_rewardful_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description compensates by stating it calls a minimal authenticated endpoint and describing the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). It does not explicitly discuss side effects, but 'verify' implies a read-only check, and the return contract is disclosed.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and includes no irrelevant detail. Every sentence contributes value.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, usage timing, and return format, but omits the meaning of the sole parameter 'brand', which is essential for correct invocation. Without this, the definition is not fully self-contained.

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 required 'brand' parameter with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'brand' refers to or how to determine its value. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to guess.

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 the tool verifies Rewardful credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling verify_auth tools by explicitly naming the network and the lightweight verification approach.

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 explicitly advises using it at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, providing clear context and a named alternative.

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