Règles de départage et calcul de classement FFBB

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this and adds the 'cache SWR court' detail, which is new behavioral context. It does not contradict the annotations. Since the annotations carry most of the safety profile, the description adds a small but useful extra detail about caching.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is longer than a typical description but every sentence serves a purpose: explaining what it does, the calculation types, safety note, and usage guidance with alternatives. It could be slightly trimmed, but it remains efficient and organized.

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's complexity (explaining tiebreak rules) and simple schema (2 optional params), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and safety. It does not describe the output format, but with no output schema and the tool being an explanation tool, this is not a critical omission. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it and how to pass parameters.

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 both parameters (season and poule_id) already have descriptions. The description adds meaningful semantics for poule_id: 'Avec poule_id, les règles sont appliquées à la poule concrète ; sans, tu obtiens les règles génériques.' This clarifies the effect of the optional parameter, going beyond the schema's basic description. This earns a score above the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states the tool provides official tiebreak rules (Article 28 du RSG FFBB) and explains the calculations for point-average, quotient, and mini-championnat. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives for different tasks, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool is for and what it is not.

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 ('uniquement quand deux équipes ou plus sont à égalité de points dans une poule') and when-not-to-use, naming specific alternatives (ffbb_search_regulations, ffbb_get_regulation_article, ffbb_list_regulations, ffbb_club(action='classement'), ffbb_bilan). It even clarifies that this tool is preferred over ffbb_search_regulations for tiebreak questions. This is comprehensive and unambiguous.

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