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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety bar is met. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the server repeats the computation and compares fingerprints, explicitly refusing when something changed; nodeId returns up to 24 Ko or refuses; and answerResource explains a stored snapshot with no recomputation. These are meaningful operational traits an agent needs.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core purpose before enumerating the input modes, and each sentence carries a distinct piece of information (recompute/refuse, snapshot path, nodeId selection, hash semantics). It leans toward run-on density rather than clean separation, but there is little 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 an existing output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the complex oneOf input mode well: the three accepted shapes, the hash-verification/refusal contract, and the nodeId size limit. For a nested-object, multi-mode tool this is nearly complete, with the only loose end being the stray proofHash/scope references.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description usefully compensates: it explains question as the original law_ask arguments (truth/collect), resultHash/codeHash as coming from the answer provenance, nodeId as selecting a node plus all its premises with a 24 Ko cap, and answerResource as fullAnswer.uri. It does mention proofHash and scope, which do not appear in the schema properties, which could mildly confuse, but the documented parameters are well clarified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Déplier la preuve d'une réponse law_ask en une chaîne règle ← prémisses → conclusion' — and names law_ask as the originating sibling, so the agent can distinguish it from plain answer retrieval. It is clear what the tool produces (a proof chain), though it does not contrast itself against other siblings like law_inspect or law_query.

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 lays out three distinct invocation modes with their conditions: the compact question/resultHash/codeHash path (server recomputes and verifies hashes), passing the evaluation from law_ask(proof=true), and answerResource=fullAnswer.uri for a stored snapshot without recomputation. That is explicit when-to-use guidance, though it stops short of stating when to prefer another sibling tool instead.

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