agenda

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: a hard 31-day cap on the window, the default status filter, and an explicit output presentation instruction (markdown table). It does not mention authentication or how results are ordered beyond 'triés'.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the scope and 31-day limit come first, then each parameter's semantics. Every sentence carries information, though the single run-on block with backtick references ('voir `containers`') is slightly harder to scan than a structured list.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description instead supplies the window cap, defaults, and a presentation instruction. For a 4-parameter read query this is nearly complete; only pagination behavior across successive windows and the sort order for the 'triés' claim are missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it specifies the 'AAAA-MM-JJ HH:MM' format in Europe/Paris local time, that a date-only value means midnight, the default end (start + 1 day), the meaning of 'containers', and the status values/default. Only the exact ordering/sort key is left unstated.

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 resource and scope: dated events AND tasks merged and sorted over a bounded window. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'tasks', 'next', and 'overdue', though the leading phrasing is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, leaving the agent to infer it is a query/aggregation tool.

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?

Gives useful operating context — the 31-day maximum window, the default 'open' status, and the default end = start + 1 day — which implies when the tool applies. However, it never states when to choose this over 'tasks', 'overdue', or 'next', so the agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names.

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