FFBB MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search functionality and return format (addresses and locations), but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, return format, and usage context with examples. Every sentence adds value, and the French language is appropriate for the FFBB context. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description adequately covers the search purpose and parameter semantics. However, for a search tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention more behavioral aspects like whether this is a fuzzy/partial match search, any limitations on results, or authentication requirements. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 and only 1 parameter, the description compensates well by explaining that the 'name' parameter can accept either hall names or city names ('by name or city'). It provides concrete examples ('Paris', 'Bercy', 'Astroballe') that clarify the expected input format, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 searches for basketball halls by name or city and returns addresses and locations. It specifies the resource (basketball halls) and verb (search), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ffbb_search_competitions or ffbb_search_rencontres beyond mentioning the resource type.

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 implied usage context ('useful for knowing match locations') and gives examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ffbb_search_rencontres (which might also provide location information). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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