Recherche directe de match entre 2 clubs

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 fully covered structurally. The description adds the returned field set but says nothing about ambiguous club-name resolution, empty results, or the effect of force_refresh — useful gaps remain with a lower bar due to 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?

Front-loaded with the core definition in the first clause, then illustrative examples. The two example questions partially overlap in what they convey, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and all six parameters are documented in the schema. It stops short of covering failure/ambiguity behavior (no match found, name vs id input), which would matter for a lookup tool of this type.

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%, with each parameter documented inline including examples and the 'YYYY-MM-DD' format, so the schema carries the full burden. The description only implicitly references club pairing and category via its example questions, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Recherche directe d'un match entre 2 clubs') and enumerates the returned fields (date, heure, salle, adresse, poule), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like ffbb_head_to_head or ffbb_next_match, which is the only thing keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Concrete example questions ('Où se joue U18M2 Thiers vs Gerzat ce week-end ?') give a clear picture of when this tool is the right call. However, it never states when *not* to use it or names an alternative such as ffbb_head_to_head for history between two clubs.

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