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.