Lecture exacte d'un article de règlement FFBB

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: no truncation, SWR cache behavior, and the exact dict fields returned. It does repeat some annotation signals, but the cache and return-format context provide extra value.

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: purpose, return behavior, then usage guidance. Every sentence contributes, and the alternative tools are listed clearly without unnecessary verbosity.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: exact return fields, idempotence and caching, when to use it, and how to disambiguate when document_id is absent. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter relationships: if document_id is omitted, organizer and season should be provided to avoid ambiguity, and the document can be obtained via ffbb_list_regulations or ffbb_search_regulations. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 precise action: retrieving the full, exact text of a specific regulation article without truncation. It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming what this tool is not for — keyword search, listing documents, and tiebreak explanations.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: when the article number and document are already known and verbatim content is needed. It also gives exclusions with exact sibling alternatives: use ffbb_search_regulations for keyword search, ffbb_list_regulations for listing, and ffbb_explain_tiebreak_rules for tiebreak explanations.

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