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.