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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scope constraint (only published and active events) and a price disclaimer, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the limit parameter.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, efficient for the space it occupies. The brevity is appropriate structurally even though it under-informs.

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 search tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It gives partial output characterization but omits any explanation of how the filters interact, which an agent needs in order 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 0% across 9 parameters, yet the description explains none of them — no mention of query, commune, gratuit, periode, dates, categorie or langue semantics. The occurrence/price remarks describe output, not the filtering inputs, leaving the parameters entirely undocumented.

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 — published/active events from the NLocale agenda — and clarifies that occurrences are included, which is more than a tautology of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from event-related siblings like agenda_weekend or chercher_sorties, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives, despite three closely related siblings (agenda_weekend, chercher_sorties) that an agent must choose between. Usage is only implied by the name.

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