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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so hazards are covered by structured data. The description contributes the useful time-window behavior (only future/current events are returned), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the feed is site-wide versus per-server.

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 tight sentence with the scope front-loaded before the illustrative examples; nothing is wasted. The only shortfall is that it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the action ('list/show events') must be inferred.

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 simple read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented single parameter, the description supplies enough to know what is returned and its time scope. Return format and ordering are the only unstated pieces, and no output schema exists to cover them.

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?

Only one optional parameter ('limite'), and its schema description covers range 1–25 at 100% coverage, so the schema does the work. The description adds no detail about how many results are returned by default or how they are ordered, which is the baseline expectation here.

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?

Names a concrete resource (server-team announced events) and narrows the scope to 'à venir ou en cours', with parenthetical examples of event types that make the content unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no sibling in the list plausibly overlaps with an events feed.

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?

The temporal qualifier ('upcoming or ongoing') implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit instruction on when to use it instead of e.g. fiche_serveur or statistiques, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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