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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaning beyond them by specifying what idempotency actually yields: the same URL and the same distinct revocation secret on repeated calls with an identical preparationId. It still does not disclose permission requirements or what the returned revocation secret is for.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the idempotency caveat immediately after. No filler, and the reader gets the essential contract in the first clause.

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 values need not be enumerated, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplements this with the idempotent-return guarantee. The remaining gap is the absence of workflow linkage to the prepare and revoke siblings, which matters given the large sibling set.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single preparationId. It does add real semantics — that the same value produces the same idempotent result — but never states where preparationId comes from or that it identifies the artifact produced by the preparation step.

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 and resource ('Publier un document préparé'), which is clear and action-oriented. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as law_prepare_answer or law_revoke_answer, so an agent must infer the prepare→publish→revoke pipeline rather than being routed explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'document préparé' and the required preparationId suggest this must be called after a preparation step. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., revoke_answer for the inverse operation), leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.

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