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 elsewhere. The description's only added behavioral fact is the 'public' scope restriction (closed-world, public tournaments only), with no note on result volume, paging or ordering — adequate but not 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, no filler. Slight redundancy from stating the same content in Korean and English, though this appears to be a deliberate bilingual convention.

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 four-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the filter axes but omits the limit/pagination parameter entirely and says nothing about what a result record contains or how results are ordered. Annotations and the schema carry most of the remaining burden, so this is workable but incomplete.

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 75% and the schema itself documents the game slug, keyword and status enum values, so the description's enumeration of 'keyword, game slug and status' largely restates structured data. It does not mention the limit parameter or any format/syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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 gives a specific verb (search), resource (tournaments) and a scope qualifier (public), plus the axes it searches on (keyword · game slug · status). It implicitly separates itself from get_tournament (single lookup) and from the unrelated search_battle_zones/search_pc_bangs siblings, though it never names them 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?

"Search public tournaments by keyword, game slug and status" implies when the tool applies (discovering/browsing tournaments), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion such as 'use get_tournament for a single known id', and no stated prerequisites.

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