Face-à-Face & Comparaison d'équipes (H2H)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the analysis dimensions returned (historical H2H, form, attack/defense duel, narrative points). It does not disclose edge cases like missing H2H data, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 front-loads the main purpose in one sentence and then organizes the additional value into four compact, semantically distinct bullets. Every bullet earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the bullet list covers the major return contents well, and the annotations cover side effects. However, it does not state which parameters are needed to start (e.g., club_a/club_b vs organisme_id_a/b or categorie), though the input schema compensates. This gap keeps it just below a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter (club_a, club_b, categorie, force_refresh, organisme_id_a/b) has its own description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the notion of comparing two teams; it does not explain the name-vs-ID alternatives or the need for a common categorie, but the schema already covers these.

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 specific action ('Compare deux équipes') and a specific resource ('confrontations directes (H2H)'). The bullets clearly define the output as a head-to-head analysis covering historical record, recent form, statistical duel, and narrative points, which differentiates it from single-team siblings like ffbb_team_summary or ffbb_bilan.

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 gives clear use context: the output is 'prêtes pour la rédaction d'articles ou de synthèses d'avant-match', so an agent can infer it is for pre-match comparison articles. It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of 5.

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