Prochain match d'équipe

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) indicate safe, read-only behavior. Description adds critical behavioral context: returns strictly one match, warns against plural misuse, and explains need for team resolution. No contradictions.

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 mostly concise with clear front-loading of purpose. Warnings and recommendations are valuable but slightly verbose; however, structure is logical and each sentence adds meaning.

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 complexity (5 parameters, vague categories) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key usage pitfalls and prerequisites thoroughly. No gaps in necessary context for safe 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by cross-referencing ffbb_resolve_team for numero_equipe and categorie ambiguity, which aids understanding beyond 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?

Description clearly states it returns the next match for a specific team ('Prochain match à jouer pour une équipe précise'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by warning against plural requests, which are handled by ffbb_club.

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?

Description gives explicit when-to-use (singular match request) and when-not-to-use (plural requests, redirecting to ffbb_club). It also recommends using ffbb_resolve_team for ambiguous categories, providing clear decision guidance.

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