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.