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 adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: results are returned most recent first and each carries an event_id usable downstream. Pagination/limit behavior is left entirely to the schema, 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool finds, followed by ordering and the downstream call. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description needn't explain return values, and it supplies the one thing that isn't structured: ordering. It leaves open what happens when no filters are supplied (presumably a most-recent default) and says nothing about the limit cap, which is a minor but real gap for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema with examples ('Swing Diego', 'Germany'). The description only restates the filterable fields and the 'and/or' combination semantics, adding no format or precedence detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Find WSDC registry events') and even defines the domain term in parentheses (conventions with points-awarding Jack & Jill contests). It enumerates the filterable fields and states result ordering ('Most recent first'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from search_dancers and the get_* lookup siblings.

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 clear use case (finding events by name, city, year and/or country) and an explicit follow-up route: 'Use the event_id with get_event_results.' It does not state when NOT to use it or how it relates to search_dancers beyond the obvious resource difference, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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