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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful domain context by specifying the 7-day window and open-spot counts, but it does not describe response shape or grouping.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the resource scope before the 7-day detail. The French/English duplication is appropriate for a bilingual catalog, though it repeats the same content rather than adding structure.

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?

With zero parameters and clear read-only annotations, the core invocation context is sufficient. However, the description lacks sibling differentiation and does not state how the returned cities/categories/services are structured, which matters because there is no output 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not introduce misleading parameter information.

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?

The description names the resources returned: cities, categories, services, and open spots per city/category over a 7-day horizon. It is specific about content and scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish this lookup tool from the sibling 'chercher_places'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'chercher_places' or 'lien_alerte_texto', nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the content description.

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