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.