Ressource FFBB par identifiant

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds that type='poule' may be truncated and force_refresh can bypass cache for live scores, enhancing transparency beyond 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?

Description is concise and front-loaded, with one sentence for purpose followed by bullet-pointed warnings and alternatives. Every sentence adds necessary value.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers all relevant behavioral notes, edge cases (truncation), and alternative tools, making it fully informative.

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 covers all parameters (100%) but description adds key context: for 'id', warns against using club name directly and suggests ftbb_search; explains approximate behavior of each type; clarifies force_refresh is only for 'poule'.

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 'Recupere une ressource FFBB par identifiant' and specifies what each type loads (competition, poule, organisme), distinguishing from sibling tools 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?

Explicitly warns not to use for scores or next match, providing alternatives ftbb_last_result and ffbb_next_match. Also advises using ftbb_club for full schedule when type='poule' may be truncated.

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