Résolution d'équipe

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it resolves to a unique team, acts as a central pivot, and should be invoked before match/result tools when there is ambiguity. It does not detail return shape or error behavior, but given the annotations, this is acceptable.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The prerequisite usage guidance is delivered in a clear, direct way without redundant filler.

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 rich schema descriptions and strong annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and when to invoke it. A small gap is that it does not explicitly state what the return value should be used for, though 'identifie une equipe unique' and the prerequisite wording strongly imply it.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond mentioning category ambiguity in the usage example. Therefore the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Identifie une equipe unique (Pivot central).' It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings by stating it is a prerequisite for `ffbb_next_match` and `ffbb_last_result`, so an agent can understand what this tool does and how it fits into a workflow.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: before `ffbb_next_match` or `ffbb_last_result` when the exact team number is unknown or the category is ambiguous. This gives concrete usage conditions and names the alternative workflow it supports, leaving little to inference.

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