identity_submit_response

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: the outcome is scored pass/fail/inconclusive, and a pass returns a short-lived signed assertion_token (JWT) verifiable via identity_jwks. It also flags the nonce-freshness constraint. It does not cover retry/one-shot semantics or failure consequences, keeping it below 5.

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 tight clauses: what it does, what a pass yields, and the nonce prerequisite. The scoping and workflow-critical constraint are front-loaded, and nothing is padding.

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 5-required-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the outcome states and the returned token, which is what an agent most needs. It omits signing/auth expectations and failure handling, but those are partially covered by the schema field descriptions.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema does not state explicitly: the nonce must be DIFFERENT from the one identity_get_challenge used. That extra rule meaningfully improves correct invocation of the nonce parameter.

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 (submit) and resource (your answer to a challenge), and adds the scoring semantics (pass / fail / inconclusive). It names sibling tools (identity_get_challenge, identity_jwks, identity_get_nonce), so an agent can place it in the identity workflow without opening other schemas.

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?

It references the surrounding flow (the nonce must differ from the one identity_get_challenge used) and points at identity_get_nonce as the nonce source, which tells the agent when this step applies. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or fallback alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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