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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds value by stating events are sorted by start date and that titles/descriptions are in French, which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose and region, second lists filters, third adds sort and language. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers region, filters, sort, and language. Without an output schema, it hints at returned fields by mentioning titles/descriptions. It could mention pagination defaults or output fields explicitly, but it is reasonably complete for a read-only tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description enriches meaning by grouping filter types (keyword, city, free admission, date window) and noting the sort order, which adds context beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions. It does not mention limit/offset explicitly, but the examples help.

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 clearly states the tool finds upcoming events in the Île-de-France region with specific filters, using the verb 'Find' and specifying the resource 'upcoming events'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are unrelated (e.g., ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx).

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 provides clear context: region, filter options, sort order, and language of content. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but given the absence of similar sibling tools, it is sufficient.

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