affiliate_sovrn-commerce_verify_auth

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the call mechanism ('minimal authenticated endpoint') and the return shape ('{ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}'). It implies read-only verification, though it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or permission requirements. This is good context for a zero-parameter 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: first defines the action, second provides usage timing and return format. No redundancy.

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, simple verification tool, the description fully covers purpose, when to use it, return value, and relationship to a sibling tool. The empty schema and lack of output schema are compensated by the description.

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 schema covers everything vacuously. The description still clarifies that no input is needed and explains what the call does, which is appropriate for a parameterless operation.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify'), a specific resource ('configured credentials for Sovrn Commerce'), and the method ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). This clearly distinguishes it from other network verify_auth tools by network name.

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 points to affiliate_run_diagnostic for a fuller health check, making the alternative clear.

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