WCS Points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the shape of the payload, but says nothing about error behavior for an invalid or unknown wsdc_id, whether inactive/retired dancers are covered, or how current the points data is.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited field list and no filler. It is slightly long for a single-parameter read tool, and much of the field enumeration duplicates what the output schema already conveys.

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, fully-annotated read tool with an output schema, the definition is sufficient to call it correctly. The only real gap is the absence of any usage or failure-mode guidance, which is minor given the structured metadata.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'WSDC competitor ID' with bounds 1-9999999. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a dancer's WSDC profile') and enumerates exactly what is returned (division/points per role, allowed Jack & Jill divisions, level-up timeline, competition dates). This makes it distinguishable in practice from get_dancer_results and search_dancers, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. needing a valid WSDC ID), and no routing to alternatives such as get_dancer_results for competition history. Usage is only weakly implied by the returned-field list.

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds two pieces of real behavioral context beyond that: results are ordered most recent first, and totals are aggregated over all matching results rather than the limited page. It stops short of describing pagination limits or empty-result behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and shape of the result, then the ordering and aggregation caveat. No redundant restatement of the title or parameter list, though the trailing fragment about totals is slightly dangling without saying where totals appear.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's burden, and the schema fully documents all five parameters. What remains missing is minor but real: no guidance on the relationship to get_event_results or on behavior for an unknown dancer ID, which matters for an ID-keyed lookup.

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%, with every parameter documented including role values, division examples, and limit bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description only refers to 'filters' generically and adds no syntax or semantics the schema does not already carry.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List a dancer's WSDC Jack & Jill placements') and enumerates the returned fields (event, date, division, role, placement, points), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name any sibling such as get_event_results or get_dancer_profile to distinguish the inverse/predecessor view, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the per-dancer results lookup, and the mention of filters hints that role/year/division narrow results. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_event_results or search_dancers, and no note on what happens when the wsdc_id is unknown or the filters match nothing.

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?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add what they cannot: that this is an aggregation returning counts split by division and role rather than a list of dancers. That grouping semantic is genuinely useful and would not be inferable from the annotations; it does not add anything about result shape or performance, which keeps it below 5.

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 compact sentence with the verb and grouping front-loaded and the two optional scoping knobs trailing. No filler, though the parenthetical role list makes it slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple two-optional-parameter aggregate tool, what remains is adequate, with only the sibling-selection guidance missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the two filters in plain language (country scope, recent activity) but adds no format, valid value, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema properties already say.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Count dancers') plus the exact grouping dimensions ('current division and role (Leader/Follower)'), which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings such as search_dancers and get_dancer_profile. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 scoping clause ('worldwide or for one country, optionally only recently active dancers') implies when the two filters are appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search_dancers guidance and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: results are limited to Jack & Jill placements (not other event categories), are grouped by division with the highest division first, and carry placement, role, points, dancer name and WSDC ID.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource, scope, grouping and returned fields with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the returned fields and ordering, which is a mild redundancy but confirms shape. The main gap is that it never states behavior when division is omitted or when an event has no recorded results.

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%, so the schema already documents both event_id and the optional division filter with an example. The description adds only the implicit 'one event' and 'grouped by division' framing, not new syntax or format detail for either parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: retrieve Jack & Jill placements from the WSDC registry for a single event, grouped by division and ordered highest first. The 'for one event' scoping implicitly separates it from the per-dancer sibling get_dancer_results, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'for one event' scope plus the event_id parameter described as coming 'from search_events' suggests the search-then-fetch workflow. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_dancer_results or get_division_stats, and no exclusions.

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?

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the sort order ('most recent first') and the notable domain nuance that a level-up in either role counts as an entry. It stops short of describing what a record contains or how the look-back window is applied, but the output schema carries the return-shape burden.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and action, followed by ordering and filters in priority order. Nothing is redundant with the schema and nothing is 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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter documentation and rich annotations, the description only needs to convey scope and ordering, which it does. A brief mention of the default 90-day window or how results are bounded would make it airtight, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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% and all four parameters (days, limit, country, division) are documented inline with defaults and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'division' means the target division moved into, but adds no format, matching, or naming conventions 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List dancers who recently moved up to a higher WSDC division'), plus scope details: both roles, most-recent-first ordering, and optional country/division filters. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_dancers (roster lookup) or get_dancer_results (competition outcomes), since it returns a time-windowed promotion feed.

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?

Usage is implied by the data shape (recent division changes over a look-back window), but the description never says when to prefer this over search_dancers or get_division_stats, nor does it state exclusion conditions. An agent can infer the right context but must reason about alternatives on its own.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description meaningfully adds that the data is a 'mirror' with links to official sources, signalling that figures may lag the authoritative dataset — a behavioral nuance not present in the annotations.

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 tight sentence with the key concept ('coverage and freshness') front-loaded and no filler. It is a sentence fragment without a verb, which slightly softens the opening, but no wording is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description helpfully enumerates the main fields anyway. For a zero-argument metadata tool this is nearly complete; only the intended trigger (e.g., 'use before citing result counts') is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes nothing for the description to clarify; baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or muddies the empty argument object.

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 concrete resource and enumerates its contents: dancer/event counts, most-recent-event date, rulebook version, and official-source links. It is clearly distinct from every sibling (search_*, get_*_profile/results, get_division_stats). It stops short of a verb phrase like 'Return registry metadata', so it reads more as a field list than a statement of action.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus the sibling tools, nor any precondition such as 'call before relying on results to check data freshness'. The phrase 'coverage and freshness' implies a metadata/pre-flight check, but the agent must infer that intended usage entirely.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value: it names the returned fields, the ordering ("most recently active dancers first"), and the follow-on handoff via WSDC ID. It does not say what happens on zero matches, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape and ordering, then the handoff instruction. Nothing is repeated for filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter, read-only search with an output schema already covering return structure, this is nearly complete. The one gap is edge-case behavior on no matches or overly broad queries, which an agent would have to discover by calling 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% and both parameters are fully documented, including partial/any-order names and Latin/Cyrillic support. The description only restates "by name or WSDC ID" and adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find West Coast Swing dancers in the WSDC Points Registry") plus the two lookup keys (name or WSDC ID). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like search_events or get_dancer_profile without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the closing line "Use the WSDC ID with the other dancer tools" positions this as an entry point, and the name-vs-ID phrasing hints at both lookup modes. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., when to go straight to get_dancer_profile with a known ID).

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: results are returned most recent first and each carries an event_id usable downstream. Pagination/limit behavior is left entirely to the schema, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool finds, followed by ordering and the downstream call. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return values, and it supplies the one thing that isn't structured: ordering. It leaves open what happens when no filters are supplied (presumably a most-recent default) and says nothing about the limit cap, which is a minor but real gap for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema with examples ('Swing Diego', 'Germany'). The description only restates the filterable fields and the 'and/or' combination semantics, adding no format or precedence detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Find WSDC registry events') and even defines the domain term in parentheses (conventions with points-awarding Jack & Jill contests). It enumerates the filterable fields and states result ordering ('Most recent first'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from search_dancers and the get_* lookup siblings.

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?

Gives a clear use case (finding events by name, city, year and/or country) and an explicit follow-up route: 'Use the event_id with get_event_results.' It does not state when NOT to use it or how it relates to search_dancers beyond the obvious resource difference, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are largely covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are excerpts returned 'verbatim' rather than summaries, and that the corpus is the current rulebook only — a meaningful scoping constraint an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and corpus, then a compact enumeration of covered topics — no filler or restated title. The trailing list is dense but each item earns its place by showing query coverage; the only minor cost is that the enumeration carries no structural grouping.

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 two-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers what is searched, what is returned, and how results are presented (verbatim excerpts). Gaps are minor: it does not state what happens on a no-match query or whether results include rulebook section citations.

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%, with the query parameter carrying its own natural-language examples and max_results documented with default and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same topic set but adds no guidance on query phrasing strategy (e.g. keyword vs. natural-language) or how to choose max_results.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a specifically named resource ('official WSDC Registry Event Rules (current rulebook)'), and the return shape ('most relevant sections verbatim'). The enumerated topic list (move-up thresholds, points per placement/tier, role rules, contest requirements, age divisions, judging) makes it unmistakable versus siblings like search_dancers or get_event_results, which cover entirely different domains.

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 topic enumeration effectively defines the queries this tool answers, and no sibling handles rulebook lookups, so the when-to-use context is clear. It stops short of an explicit routing statement ('use this instead of X when...') or an exclusion such as 'not for historical/superseded rulebooks'.

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