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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: past events are never returned, data comes from Projet Ariane and OpenAgenda, and results include dates, lieu, and registration link. This sets accurate expectations for an agent.

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?

The description is compact: one substantial sentence plus one sharp exclusion sentence. It is front-loaded with the main action and each clause adds distinct information without redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with six optional, well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, supported filters, output elements, data sources, and a key behavioral guarantee. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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. The description adds value by grouping filters into meaningful dimensions ('par ville ou département, type et horizon') and indicating result content. It does not repeat every parameter detail, but the schema already documents limite and recherche well.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Liste les événements d'orientation à venir.' It names the event subtypes (JPO, salons, forums, ateliers, conférences), the available filters, and the output fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which target classements, fiches, and searches, not events.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to list upcoming orientation events by city/department, type, and horizon. It also adds an exclusion ('Ne rend jamais un événement passé'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none of the siblings cover events, so the intended use is obvious.

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