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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are largely covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are excerpts returned 'verbatim' rather than summaries, and that the corpus is the current rulebook only — a meaningful scoping constraint an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and corpus, then a compact enumeration of covered topics — no filler or restated title. The trailing list is dense but each item earns its place by showing query coverage; the only minor cost is that the enumeration carries no structural grouping.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers what is searched, what is returned, and how results are presented (verbatim excerpts). Gaps are minor: it does not state what happens on a no-match query or whether results include rulebook section citations.

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 the query parameter carrying its own natural-language examples and max_results documented with default and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the same topic set but adds no guidance on query phrasing strategy (e.g. keyword vs. natural-language) or how to choose max_results.

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 ('Search'), a specifically named resource ('official WSDC Registry Event Rules (current rulebook)'), and the return shape ('most relevant sections verbatim'). The enumerated topic list (move-up thresholds, points per placement/tier, role rules, contest requirements, age divisions, judging) makes it unmistakable versus siblings like search_dancers or get_event_results, which cover entirely different domains.

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?

The topic enumeration effectively defines the queries this tool answers, and no sibling handles rulebook lookups, so the when-to-use context is clear. It stops short of an explicit routing statement ('use this instead of X when...') or an exclusion such as 'not for historical/superseded rulebooks'.

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