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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral context – the data is re-read nightly from the Ministry of Culture agenda, and each event record includes its page URL. But it omits read-only status, pagination or result-limit behavior, and whether filters combine.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. The second sentence about the embedded page URL is a useful addition rather than padding.

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 filtered-list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, freshness and output content adequately. It stops short of explaining filter behavior or how to choose between this and sibling listing tools, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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%, with theme, limite and departement documented in the schema and lang left silent. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage 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 names a concrete resource and scope – upcoming guided tours, night openings and exceptional openings – sourced from the Ministry of Culture calendar. This lets an agent distinguish it as an events feed rather than a castle reference tool. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like ouverts_ce_weekend or search_chateaux, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. With five sibling tools covering castles, itineraries, weekend openings and prices, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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