Ressource FFBB par identifiant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by warning about potential truncation for type='poule' and explaining the force_refresh parameter for cache bypass. 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?

The description is well-structured with bullet points, warnings, and front-loaded purpose. It is informative but slightly verbose; each sentence adds value, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 (multiple resource types, truncation, caching) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers necessary caveats, alternatives, and parameter use cases. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, but the description enriches parameter understanding: for id, it instructs to use ffbb_search first; for type, it maps values to other tools; for force_refresh, it clarifies its applicability only to type='poule'. This goes beyond the 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 it retrieves a FFBB resource by ID, and maps specific type values to equivalent tools (e.g., type='competition' equals get_competition), distinguishing it from siblings. It also explicitly warns against using it for score/next match, reinforcing its specific purpose.

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 (by ID) and when-not-to (for score/next match, recommending ffbb_last_result and ffbb_next_match). It also suggests an alternative for full calendar (ffbb_club). This is comprehensive and clear.

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