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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so restating 'lecture seule, idempotent, sans effet de bord' adds little. However, the description contributes genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot carry: the short SWR cache and, importantly, that passing poule_id switches the output from generic rules to rules applied to that concrete poule.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then routing — a sensible order. It is on the long side and the closing sentence ('Utilise ffbb_explain_tiebreak_rules au lieu de ffbb_search_regulations quand la question porte sur le départage...') partially repeats the earlier exclusion of ffbb_search_regulations, but the redundancy is mild and the rest earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the concepts the answer will cover (point-average, quotient, mini-championnat), which is adequate for a two-parameter read-only explainer. Season defaulting is left to the schema, so the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the semantic difference between supplying poule_id (rules instantiated on the concrete poule) versus omitting it (generic rules), which is behavioral meaning the schema only hints at.

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+resource (official FFBB tiebreak rules, Article 28 RSG) and enumerates the sub-concepts it covers: point-average particulier, quotient particulier, mini-championnat. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (two or more teams tied on points and you must explain the ranking) plus an unusually complete set of exclusions naming the correct alternative for each case: ffbb_search_regulations, ffbb_get_regulation_article, ffbb_list_regulations, ffbb_club(action="classement"), and ffbb_bilan. Nothing is left to inference.

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