affiliate_shopmy_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 specifies the return format ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), which gives a clear behavioral contract. It does not explicitly state side effects, but the nature of a verify operation implies no changes, making this sufficient.

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 that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage timing and return format. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or filler 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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, when to use, return values, and relationship to the diagnostic tool, making it fully complete 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameter meanings. The schema is empty (100% coverage), and the description adds useful context about the operation's purpose and results. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 configured ShopMy credentials by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint. It distinguishes from other verify_auth tools by specifying the network (ShopMy) and contrasts with affiliate_run_diagnostic as a full health check.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' Also tells when to pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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