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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description usefully adds that drafts are not republished and no CI/redeployment is triggered, clarifying the blast radius of the write. It stays silent on whether the rebuilt files go live immediately, whether the job is async, or what permissions are needed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two key caveats. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the essentials are present. Still missing is whether the rebuild affects the live site immediately, how long it takes, and how to verify results (get_publication_status is the obvious follow-up but is not referenced).

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate. No misleading parameter language appears.

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?

A specific verb+resource pair: regenerate HTML files from published documents. The clause 'sans republier les brouillons' implicitly distinguishes it from the publishing siblings (publish_page, publish_site_project), though it never names one.

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?

Implies the situation where this applies — refreshing rendered HTML without republishing drafts or triggering CI/redeployment — which is real usage context. But it never explicitly says when to prefer it over publish_page/publish_site_project or get_publication_status, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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