Recherche et désambiguïsation d'équipes candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it returns a sorted list of candidates with confidence, reason, competition details, and next match, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: a clear action sentence, a concrete example of the problem, and a concise statement of the output. Every sentence contributes to understanding or selecting the tool.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand when and why to use it, and what it returns. It could be more complete by noting edge cases or the exact output shape, but the annotations and schema carry much of the remaining burden.

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 reinforces the disambiguation intent and mentions club/CTC, but it does not add significant meaning about individual parameters beyond what the schema already documents. It provides context, not new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Recherche et ordonne les équipes candidates d'un club/CTC' with a clear purpose ('pour désambiguïser avant tout calendrier/résultat'). It also gives a concrete example of the ambiguity resolved (fanion sans numéro vs réserve), which distinguishes it from siblings like ffbb_next_match or ffbb_last_result.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: before handling calendars or results when disambiguating teams. The fanion/réserve example provides a concrete trigger scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give 'when not to use' guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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