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 fully covered. The description adds useful scoping context (badges may be 'pendientes de reclamar', WAGR only 'si lo tiene'), which explains partial/variable results. It does not describe result ordering, volume, or what happens with the lookback window, so it stays at an adequate level rather than rich.

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?

The resource is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by an enumeration of returned data and then example queries. It is dense but every element is informative; the only mild redundancy is that 'resultados' appears twice (once in the opening list, once as 'resultados de torneo del perfil').

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description does the heavy lifting well by itemizing the categories of data returned, including the edge case of unclaimed badges. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though the absence of any mention of the time window parameter leaves one small gap.

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?

The single 'months' parameter has 100% schema description coverage (1–36, default 12), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only indirectly gestures at it via 'este año', without stating that the lookback window is configurable or what the default covers. Baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is complete and the description adds little.

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 enumerates precisely what the tool returns: the player's own tournament registrations, results, prizes/badges (delivered or pending claim), Badgie club tournaments, official federation rounds, profile tournament results, and WAGR history if present. This makes it clearly distinct from list_competitions and get_my_federation, though it never names those siblings 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?

It gives concrete trigger phrasings ('¿cómo quedé?', '¿en qué estoy inscrito?', '¿qué torneos he jugado este año?') and a hard exclusion — 'Solo los suyos; nunca de otro jugador' — which steers the agent away from any cross-player lookup. What's missing is an explicit pointer to which sibling to use when the user asks about another player or about open competitions.

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