Ressource FFBB par identifiant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note about caching (the schema's force_refresh mentions a cache), no mention of live-data behavior, auth needs, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the burden, the description still contributes essentially zero extra behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence with no bloat and no filler, which satisfies 'concise'. However, it is so thin that it conveys almost nothing beyond the title, so it is under-specification rather than efficient front-loading.

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 polymorphic getter covering eight resource types with four parameters and no output schema, the description omits what a returned 'ressource' looks like, that structure varies by type, and how the optional club scoping interacts with type='competition'. The schema compensates for parameters, but the description leaves the tool's overall behavior largely unexplained.

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 all four parameters (id, club, type, force_refresh) are already well documented, including the enum for type and the cache-bypass semantics of force_refresh. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a verb ('Recupere') and a resource ('ressource FFBB') scoped by identifier, so the basic action is clear. But 'ressource' is generic despite the eight resource types in the enum, and it restates the title almost verbatim without distinguishing this tool from siblings like ffbb_search or ffbb_club. An agent cannot tell from the text alone which resource flavors or scoping rules apply.

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 contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Useful routing advice ('use ffbb_search first to resolve the id') exists only in the schema's parameter description, not in the tool description, so the description itself provides no selection help.

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