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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add genuinely useful behavioral context: the data is refreshed nightly from the Ministry of Culture agenda (implying up to ~24h staleness) and every event includes its page URL. It still omits authorization/privacy profile, ordering, and how the default limit interacts with result volume.

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 front-loaded sentences covering the resource first and the return payload second, with no filler. It is efficient and appropriately sized for a four-parameter list tool.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description discloses the data source, refresh cadence, and one returned field (the event URL). It lacks detail on result ordering and pagination behavior, but nothing critical for correct invocation appears missing.

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 75%, so the schema already documents theme, limite (24 by default), and departement; only the 'lang' enum is undocumented anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., whether filters combine, or what happens when theme matches nothing), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource (upcoming guided tours, night visits, and exceptional openings) with temporal scope ('à venir'), so an agent knows it is an events-listing tool. However, it never differentiates itself from the semantically close sibling 'ouverts_ce_weekend' or from 'search_chateaux', so an agent must infer the division of labor.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any alternative tool. The mention of the Ministry of Culture agenda implies a data source but not a usage condition.

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