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

Annotations already flag idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond that: the repeat call returns the *same URL* and the *same separate revocation secret*, which is exactly what an agent needs to know to safely retry. It is slightly redundant with idempotentHint but the payload specifics are new information.

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 no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the idempotency note. Wording is slightly clunky ("with the same preparationId idempotently returns") but nothing is wasted.

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 explained further, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is the missing pointer to law_prepare_answer as the source of preparationId and to law_revoke_answer as the consumer of the revocation secret.

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 0% and the single preparationId parameter has no schema description. The description names preparationId and implies it is a handle produced by a prior preparation step, but does not say where to obtain it or what its format is, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ("Publish a prepared document") that an agent can distinguish from law_prepare_answer (which prepares) and law_revoke_answer (which revokes). It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the preparation/publish/revoke triad is inferable from the verb choice.

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?

The description implies the precondition that a document must already be prepared and identified by preparationId, which implies law_prepare_answer runs first. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives, nor what happens if the preparationId is unknown or expired.

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