Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the return content (profile plus career record), but says nothing about behavior on invalid or unknown IDs, which is the main remaining unknown for this call.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and the key constraint; nothing is padded or restated.

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 read-only, one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does and roughly what it returns. The only real gap is error behavior for a nonexistent ID, which is minor at this complexity.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents "Official rikishi ID (e.g. 4227)". The description only echoes "numeric ID", adding no format, range, or validity guidance beyond the structured field, 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 names a specific verb+resource pair ("Get detailed profile and career record for a specific rikishi") and constrains the lookup key to a numeric ID, which clearly separates it from list_basho and get_banzuke. It never names or contrasts with search_rikishi, the closest sibling, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"By numeric ID" quietly implies you must already know the ID, which hints that search_rikishi is the discovery path, but the description never says so or gives any when-not condition. An agent must infer the workflow rather than read it.

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