affiliate_tolt_verify_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the call method (minimal authenticated endpoint) and the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}). This is useful behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or what side effects (if any) occur, which is slightly less complete 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?

The description is three sentences long and each sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant information. Excellent structure for a small tool.

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 simple verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, usage timing, return format, and relationship to the diagnostic tool. The only notable omission is an explanation of the 'brand' parameter, which prevents a perfect score. Otherwise, the description is complete.

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 one required parameter 'brand' with no description (0% schema description coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'brand' means or how it relates to Tolt credentials, leaving the agent to infer that 'brand' identifies which Tolt account to verify. This is a significant gap since the description should compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Verify the configured credentials for Tolt are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling verify_auth tools for other networks and from the broader health check tool (affiliate_run_diagnostic). It is a specific verb + resource (verifying Tolt credentials).

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 usage guidance is provided: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also offers an alternative/complement: 'pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus the diagnostic.

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