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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the core mechanism: the client never supplies the answer, the server re-executes, and any discrepancy in input/law/resource/server code/engine library/result rejects the entire document. The 24-hour non-public frozen-document lifetime is also new information. This is genuinely useful behavioral context for a readOnlyHint=false tool.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the triggering action and with the rejection rule last. Every sentence carries substantive meaning for a tool with this much machinery, though the prose is heavy and could be split for scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description covers the replay/compare/freeze workflow well. Still incomplete on parameter usage (documentVersion choice, calculations vs producerRuns) which matters for correct invocation of this nested, oneOf-constrained schema.

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 description coverage is only 33% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate, yet it only indirectly maps to the schema ('1 à 12 appels' matches the maxItems=12 arrays and it names replayControl). It does not explain question, language, assistant, documentVersion, or the oneOf exclusivity between calculations and producerRuns.

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 compound action: replay 1–12 prior law_ask/law_process_run calls, strictly compare their replayControl, and produce a frozen non-public document for 24h. The verb+resource+scope are identifiable and it names the input source tools, though the density and French phrasing make it somewhat harder to parse than a crisp one-liner.

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 gives one gating condition ('à la demande explicite de l'utilisateur') which is useful context, and references law_ask/law_process_run as the runs to replay. However it never contrasts itself with siblings like law_publish_answer, law_capture_answer or law_ask, so an agent must infer when this is the right tool over those.

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