submit_rate_limit_challenge

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

Annotations already flag openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces the external call ('Talks to Signal's servers') while adding behavior annotations do not carry: a rejected captcha returns an error and requires a fresh one, and the caller must retry the failed send afterward. Error and retry semantics are precisely the value-add expected here.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then trigger, then parameters, then error behavior and return value, then the sibling alternative. Every sentence carries load with no filler; parentheticals are compact.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description discloses the return value ({status: 'challenge submitted'}) and the required follow-up action (retry the failed send), plus failure behavior. For a two-parameter, single-purpose tool this leaves nothing an agent needs missing.

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 goes beyond the schema by stating where each token originates: the challenge token 'from that error' and the captcha token from solving the captcha at a specific URL. That origin/provenance detail is genuinely useful for correct invocation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lift a Signal rate limit on sending') and the mechanism (submitting a proof-of-humanity challenge), which no sibling tool offers. An agent can immediately tell this apart from send_message or start_change_number.

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 an explicit trigger ('when a send fails with a rate-limit / proof-required error that includes a challenge token') and an explicit exclusion/alternative ('For a captcha needed while changing number, pass it to start_change_number instead'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension rewards.

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