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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the ranking is only returned if the organizer published results on echecs.asso.fr and that this is 'pas systematique', suggesting the result may be absent. But it does not describe error behavior, whether an empty result or exception occurs, or any other technical traits like auth requirements or rate limits.

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 one sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the conditional data-availability clause. Every part adds necessary information; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with a single documented parameter, providing a description that is nearly sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement of the output format or what happens when the ranking is not published, but given the simplicity and the clear intent, the main missing piece is the exact response/error style rather than a core use-case gap.

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?

The input schema already has 100% descriptive coverage for the single `ref` parameter, explaining it is a tournament reference returned by `lister_tournois`. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-meaning, so a solid baseline score 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 names a specific verb ('recupere'), a precise resource ('classement general publie d'un tournoi FFE'), and adds timing and publication constraints ('apres la derniere ronde jouee', 'si l'organisateur a publie ses resultats'). It also distinguishes the resource from the sibling tools such as details_tournoi and resultats_joueur_tournoi, making the tool's role clear.

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 gives an implicit usage context: it should be used when a published general ranking of an FFE tournament is expected, after the last round, and only if the organizer published results. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer another sibling tool or when not to use this one, so guidance beyond the condition is missing.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Recupere' implies a read-only retrieval, and the description identifies the returned data, but it does not explicitly address side effects, error cases, or any special prerequisites beyond obtaining a reference.

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 a single compact sentence that states what is retrieved and where to get the input. Every clause is useful, and the cross-reference to lister_tournois is placed naturally without padding.

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?

The tool has exactly one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the input source, the required argument, and the three meaningful output fields, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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%: the single required parameter 'ref' is already described in the schema as the reference returned by lister_tournois. The description essentially repeats that information, adding no new format or constraint details.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Recupere') and a precise resource: cadence, number of rounds, and announcement of an FFE tournament. It also mentions how to obtain the required reference via lister_tournois, which helps distinguish this details-fetching tool from the sibling listing, classification, and results tools.

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 gives a clear usage sequence by pointing to lister_tournois as the source for a valid reference. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of classement_tournoi or resultats_joueur_tournoi, but the intended context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by mentioning 'a venir (ou recents)'] and 'homologation FFE', but it doesn't disclose the return format, pagination, or whether the list only returns identifiers and names. The description is not misleading but leaves gaps for agent to infer.

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 a single sentence with the main action 'Liste les tournois…' front-loaded. It includes a concrete example in parentheses, adds no redundant explanation, and every word serves a purpose. It's direct and efficient.

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?

For a straightforward list tool with one parameter, the description explains purpose and scope, but it doesn't describe what fields the returned list contains (e.g., tournament ID, name, date). With no output schema, this is a gap; an agent may not know whether it can call details_tournoi afterward without first calling this tool. Overall, it's functional but not complete without more information.

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?

The schema already contains a comprehensive description of the 'departement' parameter (type, example, corse exception). The description's parenthetical '(comite FFE = code departement, ex. 92…)' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema states; thus, with 100% coverage, 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 states a specific action: 'Liste les tournois homologues FFE a venir (ou recents)' – listing tournaments for a given French department. It clarifies scope and provides an example ('92 pour les Hauts-de-Seine'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like details_tournoi or classement_tournoi.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to list approved FFE tournaments for a department, including upcoming or recent ones. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools but the use case is unambiguous. A 5 would require naming siblings or explicitly saying 'when not to use', but this is close.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose core behavior: search by full or partial family name and return FFE number and Elo. However, it omits potentially relevant behavioral details such as case/accent handling, result ordering or limits, and behavior when no player matches.

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 a single compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the return value stated. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input semantics and return fields. Minor missing details like result ordering or empty-result behavior are non-critical for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already defines 'nom' as the name or beginning of the name. The description reinforces this with 'nom de famille' and adds return-value context, but it does not materially extend the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Recherche'), a precise resource (FFE licensed players file), and a clear search criterion (last name or prefix). It also states what is returned (NrFFE and published Elo), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the tournament-related sibling tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever a player needs to be looked up by name in the FFE database. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are all tournament-oriented, so the intended context is clear enough without explicit when-not guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context by disclosing the data source ('grille américaine publiée par l'organisateur') and the output fields. However, it does not mention exact-match behavior for the player name, error handling, or what happens if the player or tournament is not found.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence. The main purpose and output content come first, and the data-source clause adds useful context without bloating the description.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description takes on the responsibility of explaining the return content, which it does: color, opponent, and win/draw/loss per round. It is sufficient for a focused lookup tool, though it omits failure-mode and not-found behavior.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description only restates the general concepts of 'player' and 'tournament' without adding format details or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Récupère') and names the exact resource: round-by-round results (color, opponent, result) for a specific player in a given FFE tournament. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like classement_tournoi, which would provide standings rather than player-specific game-by-game results.

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 clearly states when to use it: when you need a specific player's round-by-round results in a specific tournament. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but its scope is precise enough for an agent to select it over lister_tournois, details_tournoi, or classement_tournoi.

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