affiliate_skimlinks_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape: '{ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}', and notes the call is to a 'minimal authenticated endpoint.' This is useful but doesn't elaborate on failure modes, side effects, or error behavior beyond the reason field. Slightly more detail would make it perfect.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage triggers and return format. No fluff or repetition. Every sentence serves a distinct function.

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, the description is fully complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to the diagnostic tool. No missing context for an agent to 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 and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Verify the configured credentials for Skimlinks are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' It uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (Skimlinks credentials), and the mention of 'minimal authenticated endpoint' distinguishes it from data-retrieval tools and other network verification 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also names an alternative/complement: 'pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check.' This gives clear usage context and distinguishes from other tools.

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