Liste des règlements et juridictions FFBB disponibles

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

Annotations already mark read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds the non-obvious SWR cache with TTL ≈24h. It also discloses the return shape as a dict with documents[] containing document_id, titre, organizer, level, season, sorted by jurisdiction, which is beyond the structured fields.

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 organized into three focused blocks: scope, return/behavior, and usage routing. Every sentence adds useful information, examples like RSG and Ligues IDF clarify the catalog, and the scoping verb is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the exact returned structure and sort order. It also covers the one parameter, the default, and the operational characteristics (cache, side effects), making the tool callable without additional documentation.

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% with a generic 'Saison sportive' description. The tool description adds meaning by stating that season 'filtre l'inventaire à la saison ciblée' and reinforcing the default '2026-2027', which is a clear improvement over the schema alone.

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 verb and resource: 'Liste l'ensemble des textes réglementaires' and enumerates the federal, regional, and departmental scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ffbb_get_regulation_article and ffbb_search_regulations as tools with a different purpose.

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 this tool: discover document_id before ffbb_get_regulation_article or choose a perimeter before ffbb_search_regulations. It also gives direct counter-guidance: not for textual search, article text, or tiebreak explanation, each with the correct sibling tool named.

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