affiliate_travelpayouts_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 notes the endpoint is minimal, giving the agent a clear expectation. It falls slightly short by not explicitly stating that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, though the context implies it.

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: purpose, usage timing, and return format. It is front-loaded and every clause adds value, with no filler or 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 parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, return values, and its relationship to the diagnostic tool. This is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 an empty schema. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero parameters since there is nothing to add beyond the schema.

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 Travelpayouts credentials via a minimal authenticated endpoint, naming both the action (verify) and the resource (configured credentials). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling verify_auth tools for other networks, but the network is named, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use at session start, after key rotation, or when an auth error occurs. Also recommends pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, which clarifies how this tool relates to an alternative and when to use it.

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