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 safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the temporal window is computed against the current Paris date, and results carry no guarantee of being maintained and involve no reservation. Return format/pagination remain unstated, but the added caveats are substantive.

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 with no filler, and the core filter (Friday–Sunday published events) is front-loaded. The sector list is the longest element but is genuinely informative rather than padding.

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 listing tool whose annotations already cover safety and idempotency, and with no output schema to explain, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: temporal scope, geographic scope, and the absence of reservation/maintenance guarantees. The only omission, default result count, is minor.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden, and it only partially does: it enumerates the valid 'secteur' areas (Laon, Saint-Quentin, Soissons, etc.), which meaningfully constrains that free-text field, but says nothing about 'limit' behavior or the 'langue' choice. Partial compensation justifies a middling score.

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 states a specific resource and scope: published events ('rendez-vous publiés') restricted to the Friday–Sunday window, with a named geographic sector. It is easy to tell what is returned, but it never contrasts itself with the obvious siblings such as rechercher_evenements or chercher_sorties, so the agent must infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the weekend framing and the sector list suggest when this tool is appropriate, but the description gives no explicit 'use this when…, use X instead when…' guidance and never names an alternative among the sibling tools. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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