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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior the annotations cannot: the output includes a 24-hour expiring edit/print link, and inputs are normalized (accents, spaces) with numbers and dates to be spelled out. It doesn't say whether identical inputs yield identical puzzles or what happens on validation failure.

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?

Three sentences: output description front-loaded, then input shape, then normalization caveats. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is no 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 and no annotations on return values, the description does the work of explaining what comes back (clues, grid, expiring link). What's missing is documentation of title and locale and any failure behavior, which for a 3-parameter tool is a modest but real gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains the entries array bounds (2–12 answers, 2–20 letters) and normalization rules for answer text. It never mentions the title or locale parameters, leaving a third of the surface undocumented.

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 and resource ('Build a complete connected crossword') and enumerates the deliverables: numbered clues, answer grid, and a 24-hour edit/print link. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools find_wedding_templates and get_printing_guide, which cannot generate puzzles.

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 description gives input constraints (2–12 answers, 2–20 letters) and a spelling convention, which implies how to prepare a request, but it never says when this tool should be chosen over the siblings or what to do if input doesn't fit the constraints. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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