identity_get_access_token_with_refresh_token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds non-obvious context beyond that: the deprecation status, the internal-state warning that makes standalone use fail, and an access-policy table showing Anonymous access. It does not describe the response shape, but that is a modest gap given the 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?

The deprecation warning is correctly front-loaded, but the text is visibly malformed — markdown headers and bold markers are concatenated without whitespace, and the deprecation is stated three separate times ('[DEPRECATED]', '###DEPRECATED:', and the 'Use this API instead' block). The access-policy table also consumes space disproportionate to a deprecated one-parameter tool.

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 deprecated, single-parameter token-exchange tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, that it should not be used, what to use instead, and the auth policy. The remaining gap — what the returned token payload looks like — matters little for a tool the description tells the agent to avoid.

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% and the single body.api_token property is already documented in the schema, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by clarifying that the historical 'refresh_token' parameter name must now be sent as 'api_token' — a naming trap the tool name itself perpetuates and that the schema alone does not resolve.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Exchange organization scoped API-token for user access token.' That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from token-verification siblings like identity_check_id_token or identity_get_access_token_info. However, the rest of the text is dominated by deprecation meta-commentary, and it never names a concrete sibling tool as the replacement, only an HTTP path.

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 explicitly says '[DEPRECATED]' and 'Use this API instead: /oidc/oauth2/token', which is a clear when-not-to-use signal plus a named alternative. The caveat that 'Using the token generated by the Identity Service API alone will not work due to a missing internal state' adds a real precondition. It falls short of 5 because the recommended alternative is a raw endpoint rather than a callable sibling tool, so the agent cannot directly route to it from this toolset.

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