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

The annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, non-idempotent call. The description adds real behavioral context: a 30-day expiresAt, a shareLink with no expiry, a hard 5-sheet cap, auto-fill behavior when count is omitted, and, importantly, that saving, PDF export and on-screen solving happen on the linked site rather than in this tool. That last point is exactly the kind of scope boundary an agent needs. What is missing is auth/permission needs and what happens to earlier drafts on repeat calls.

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 description is compact and puts the output fields (shareUrl, shareLink, expiresAt, per-row heading/count/shortfall/sample) first. The opening sentence is dense and runs long, listing four return values plus two limits in one breath, which slightly hurts readability, but no sentence is filler.

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 no output schema, the description earns its keep by enumerating the return shape and the 30-day expiry. The sheet cap and auto-fill rule cover the main failure modes. It could still say what happens when a variantId is invalid or when the 5-sheet limit is exceeded, but it is complete enough to call correctly.

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%, so all three parameters (lang enum, title length bound, items[].variantId pattern, items[].count range) are already documented in the schema. The description echoes count-omitted behavior and adds the 5-sheet cap that ties items and count together, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource in Japanese – it builds an A4 worksheet draft from math problem type IDs (variantId) plus counts – and names the prerequisite (variantId comes from a type-search result). It is clearly distinct from find_math_problem_types, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the close sibling create_math_difficulty_worksheets.

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?

There is an implied workflow: get variantId from a type search, then call this. Operational rules are also stated (omit count to auto-fill a sheet; drafts over 5 sheets are impossible). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against create_math_difficulty_worksheets or create_kanji_worksheet, so usage is inferred rather than directed.

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