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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds that results carry 'références des fiches publiques et leurs sources' — useful output-content context — but says nothing about pagination, limits, or default behavior.

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?

Two compact clauses with no waste, front-loading the alias identity before the filter list. Sentences are short and information-dense, though the second clause could be folded tighter.

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 9-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description is on the thin side — it covers filter dimensions and result contents but leaves query, limit, and default values unexplained. It is adequate but not sufficient on its own.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 9 parameters, the description must compensate; it names commune, dates (date_debut/date_fin), catégorie, gratuité, and langue. It omits the two most consequential inputs, 'query' (the free-text search term) and 'limit', so the compensation is only partial.

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 this is a 'stable alias of rechercher_evenements' and enumerates the searchable dimensions (commune, dates, catégorie, gratuité, langue), which identifies both resource and scope. It also names its sibling, letting an agent recognize equivalence without opening schemas, though it never states the verb 'search' directly.

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?

Calling itself a 'stable alias' implies interchangeability with rechercher_evenements, which is mild routing guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over rechercher_evenements or any of the other recherche* siblings, leaving selection partly to inference.

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