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.