Danse Ici

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful context by listing what the record contains (programme, adresse, prix, liens), but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown or stale id, which would be the natural value-add here.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and the object. The trailing field enumeration is long but earns its place by substituting for the absent output schema, so the size is defensible.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, enumerating the returned fields closes the main gap an agent would otherwise have. Only minor omissions remain, such as behavior when the id is not found.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that 'id' is the event identifier returned by search_events. The description adds no format, example, or constraint beyond that, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Renvoie') and resource ('la fiche complète d'un événement') and enumerates the fields returned, which makes clear this is a single-item detail lookup rather than a list. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings search_events or list_dances, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 search_events, nor any prerequisite or workflow guidance in the description itself. The only hint is in the schema ('identifiant ... renvoyé par search_events'), which is structured-field territory rather than description guidance.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the payload is the set of filterable dance/style/format values, but says nothing about ordering, size, or stability of that list. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the usage context. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 no output schema, the description does the minimum necessary by naming the three categories returned. It could have noted the return shape (e.g., labels vs. identifiers usable verbatim in search_events), but for a zero-parameter reference lookup this is close to complete.

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 per the baseline rule this dimension starts at 4. There is no argument semantics to explain, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool yields rather than on inputs.

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 gives a specific verb ("Liste") and names the exact resource set (danses, styles, formats d'événement), which cleanly separates it from get_event and search_events. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it is not.

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?

"utilisables comme filtres dans search_events" states the downstream use case, telling the agent to call this before filtering events. It gives clear context but no exclusions or edge-case guidance (e.g., whether values are locale-specific or cached).

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

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add traits beyond that. It does: results are ordered by date and time, scope is limited to Paris, and the default window starts today. It omits pagination/limit behavior and result shape, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then defaults, then the one targeted invocation tip. No filler and no restatement of the name or title.

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 7-parameter, zero-required search tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is mild: it does not state the default result cap or hint at when a broader/narrower sibling call is warranted.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents every parameter including formats and defaults. The description adds genuine parameter-level meaning by teaching the combined "ce soir" pattern (from = to = today) and reinforcing the default no-date behavior, which the schema states only per-field.

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 concrete verb ("Liste") plus the resource (soirées, cours, stages, pratiques, festivals), the dance families, the geography (Paris) and the temporal window, sorted by date and time. That scope mechanically distinguishes it from get_event (single event) and list_dances (dance families) without either schema needing to be opened.

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?

Gives explicit invocation conditions for two cases: no dates supplied means starting today, and a "ce soir" query is expressed by setting from and to to today's date. Useful and actionable, but it never names an alternative tool or says when to prefer get_event/list_dances instead, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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