classement_tournoi

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.