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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by enumerating the blast radius — 'revocation closes the HTML page, the API and the download' — which tells the agent exactly what stops working.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the action-with-required-credential is front-loaded ahead of the consequence. Every clause earns its place.

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 described. The scope of destruction and the credential requirement are covered; only errant cases (invalid/rotated secret, already-revoked state) are unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 load. It explains the security model (the public id grants no control; the separate secret is what authorizes the action), which meaningfully clarifies revokeSecret, but it gives no format, length, or acquisition guidance for either parameter.

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+resource ('Revoke a published document') with the key mechanism named (separate secret). It is clearly distinguishable in intent, though it never names its natural sibling (law_publish_answer) or any other tool, so the agent must infer routing.

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 implies when it applies (a document was published and you hold the revoke secret) via 'The public id alone grants no control,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative clause. Adequate but inferential.

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