Ressource FFBB par identifiant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: 'type='poule' peut être tronqué si la poule est grande' and force_refresh 'contourne le cache... en temps réel (scores live)'. This explains side effects, caching, and truncaton beyond the annotation flags, with no contradiction.

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 well structured: a leading one-line purpose, bulleted resource type meanings, and two focused warnings. Every sentence contributes either a direct behavior or a routing decision, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 multi-type getter with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral and routing details: resource types, truncaton risk, cache behavior, and exclusions for score/next-match use. It does not describe the 'officiel' and 'entraineur' enum variants, but the essential guidance for correct selection and invocation is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds semantic meaning for the type enum by stating what each major type loads, e.g. competition, pocle, organisme, rencontre. It also reinforces the id resolution behavior indirectly by warning about using ffbb_search in the schema, and contextualises force_refresh for live scores.

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 opens with a concrete verb and object – 'Recupere une ressource FFBB par identifiant' – and then enumerates what each resource type returns, e.g. 'type='poule' charge la poule (classments + rencontres)' and 'type='organisme' charge les details d'un club'. This makes the tool's purpose and scope clear and distinguishes it from focused siblings like ffbb_last_result and ffbb_next_match.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for the main resource types and provides direct alternatives: for an exhaustive schedule, 'préférez ffbb_club(action='calendrier')' and for a score or next match, use 'ffbb_last_result' and 'ffbb_next_match' instead. This is factual routing guidance, not a generic hint.

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