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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds useful data-level context the annotations cannot: dates may be 'à confirmer', coverage scope is France/Europe/world, and an organizer plus a cross-link to guide animations is included.

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 resource and publisher are front-loaded, followed by the field list and the usage sentence; no sentence is filler. The middle field enumeration is dense but justified since there is no output schema to carry that information.

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 compensates by describing the shape of returned entries, and annotations cover the safety profile while the schema covers all parameters. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so mois, annee and sujet are already fully documented with defaults (all-year, current/next year, keyword matching). The description only alludes to month filtering via the example, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 names a specific resource (health days/weeks/months calendar) with its publisher (France Care) and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, but the resource is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

It gives concrete usage contexts — preparing a yearly prevention plan, internal communication, or finding which event falls in a given month — which orients the agent well. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear context without routing rules.

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