Résumé complet d'équipe

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the combined nature and the specific data points returned, complementing the annotations without contradiction.

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 well-structured with bullet points and examples, clearly organized. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose and the main point is front-loaded. It is concise enough for its informational value.

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 tool's complexity (3 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the composite nature and common use cases. It provides enough context for an agent to understand when and how to invoke 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema's own descriptions, so it meets the baseline without enhancement.

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 clearly states the tool provides a complete team summary combining global bilan, current phase, last match, and next match. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools that offer individual components.

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 includes example questions that indicate when to use this tool (e.g., 'Quel est le bilan de X cette saison?'). It implies alternatives exist (sibling tools) but does not explicitly state when not to use it. The examples provide clear context.

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