affiliate_shareasale_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 conveys the mechanism (minimal authenticated endpoint), the return contract ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and implies a read-only verification action. It does not detail potential network or permission errors beyond the return shape, but this is sufficient for a verification tool.

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 tightly written sentences: first states the purpose, second gives usage triggers, third describes the return format and complementary tool. No extraneous content.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and its relationship to a diagnostic tool. It is fully self-contained for an agent 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline score of 4 applies as the description adds no unnecessary 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Verify the configured credentials for ShareASale are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' This specifies a concrete action and resource, distinguishing it from other network-specific verify_auth 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this 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, offering an alternative pathway.

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