affiliate_yieldkit_verify_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and states it calls a minimal endpoint. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or list side effects, but the verification purpose implies a safe, non-mutating operation, providing adequate transparency without contradicting any annotations.

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 the action and resource, followed by concise usage guidance and return contract. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficiently complete: it explains purpose, when to invoke, return values, and relationship to the diagnostic tool. There is no missing critical information for an agent to use 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 is complete (100% coverage). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no redundant parameter info, so it meets the baseline without detracting.

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), resource (Yieldkit credentials), and method (minimal authenticated endpoint). It clearly distinguishes from other verify_auth tools by naming Yieldkit and from affiliate_run_diagnostic by positioning the latter as a complement.

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 lists when to use: start of session, after rotating keys, or after an auth error. Also mentions pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, giving clear context and a named alternative.

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