affiliate_value-commerce_verify_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the call type (minimal authenticated endpoint), the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not explicitly state whether side effects are possible, but for an auth verification tool this is clearly a safe check, so this is a minor 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?

Three compact sentences cover purpose, usage timing, and return format. There is zero fluff, and the most important verb and object are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

Despite being a simple tool with no input schema or output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to a broader diagnostic. No gaps remain for an agent to select or 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 the schema already captures this completely, so the description has little to add. It correctly avoids inventing parameters. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter guidance is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('configured credentials for ValueCommerce'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It distinguishes this from sibling verify_auth tools by naming the network (ValueCommerce) and specifying the mechanism (minimal authenticated endpoint).

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also points to a broader diagnostic tool ('pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic'), effectively distinguishing this focused auth check from the full health check alternative.

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