affiliate_tradetracker_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 return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and characterizes the call as minimal, implying a lightweight read-only operation. However, it stops short of explicitly confirming no side effects or addressing rate limits, leaving a small gap.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage timing and return format. Every sentence contributes value without 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to a diagnostic tool. Nothing essential is missing 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?

This tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about using configured credentials, which is relevant but not parameter-specific. With no params to explain, the schema coverage is effectively complete.

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 explicitly states the tool verifies TradeTracker credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint, which is a specific verb+resource+mechanism. It differentiates from other verify_auth tools by naming TradeTracker and from affiliate_run_diagnostic by implying this is a focused auth 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?

The description gives explicit use cases: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also notes pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, clarifying how it relates to an alternative tool.

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