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.