Bilan complet toutes phases

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds beyond this by explaining the tool encapsulates internal calls (club, teams, standings) and aggregates results. It also discloses the force_refresh parameter bypasses cache. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise with bullet points for return values, uses emoji and bold for emphasis, and front-loads the purpose. A few extra words could be trimmed, but it's well-structured for an agent.

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 tool complexity (encapsulates multiple calls) and presence of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains return structure (bilan_total, phases). Could mention error handling for missing clubs, but overall adequate.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., force_refresh bypasses cache), but largely repeats schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: 'Bilan complet d'une équipe toutes phases confondues en UN seul appel.' It specifies the verb (bilan complet), resource (équipe), and scope (toutes phases). It distinguishes itself from siblings by marketing itself as the priority tool for common queries.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'C'est l'outil à utiliser en priorité pour toute question de type...' It gives example queries. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools (e.g., ffbb_bilan_saison for single-season queries), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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