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.