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 ordering ('most recent first') and the shape of each result, but says nothing about pagination, the 120-day cap, or what happens when no events match — and the return shape is largely duplicated by the output schema.

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 that front-load the core definition before the pairing hint, with no filler. The single long enumeration sentence is slightly dense but each clause carries content.

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 rich annotations, a full output schema, and 100% schema coverage on three optional params, the description supplies exactly what structure cannot: what the tool is for, the result ordering, and the sibling it should be used alongside. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it 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%, with days, limit and country each documented including defaults and bounds. The description only echoes the 'last days' window and adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 resource (WSDC registry events) with a precise scope (results published in the last days) and even enumerates the returned fields (event, publication date, divisions, highest-division winners). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings, notably get_recent_levelups, which 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?

Gives a concrete usage cue by pairing it with get_recent_levelups 'for dancers who moved up', which tells the agent how the two complement each other. It does not state exclusions or when to avoid this tool (e.g., historical lookups beyond the window), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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