resultats_joueur_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. 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.