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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint) and the external-source nature (openWorldHint), so the description's job is supplementary. It adds real value by naming the source (Agenda Crescendo) and enumerating returned fields (date, titre, salle, ville, lien), which tells the agent what to expect from an otherwise opaque open-world read.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, followed by the return payload. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and discharges it by listing the fields, and it discloses the data source and geographic limitation. For a single-parameter read-only lookup this is nearly complete; only the parameter format ambiguity remains.

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 100%, so the single 'compositeur' parameter is already documented. The description adds nothing about accepted formats (name vs. Pauline identifier), 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?

States a specific verb-and-resource pair (list upcoming concerts that program a given composer) plus a clear geographic scope (Belgique/Eurorégion) and names the data source (Agenda Crescendo). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like fiche_compositeur or disques_crescendo, but the resource type is distinct enough that an agent can separate them.

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 implied rather than stated: the geographic scoping implicitly tells the agent this tool will not return concerts outside Belgium/Eurorégion, but there is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' routing against the three sibling tools. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the boundary.

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