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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: the returned Markdown structure and the fact that puzzle PDFs include an answer key while game/drawing-practice PDFs do not.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output shape, followed by the answer-key caveat and the parameter source. The answer-key sentence is slightly tangential but carries real decision value, so little is wasted.

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, the description need not document return values, yet it still orients the agent on output form and the answer-key distinction. Combined with the parameter-source hint, it is nearly complete for a simple two-parameter lookup, with only enum meaning left implicit.

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 50%: the slug parameter is documented in-schema with an example, while the activity enum has no per-value description. The description's contribution is telling the agent the values come from search_activities, which is helpful but does not explain what each activity type means.

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 and resource (get one printable puzzle), names the return format (Markdown with description, level, word list or color key), and lists the accompanying play and PDF URLs. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling read tools like list_activities or show_word_search.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required inputs come from: 'Use an activity and slug from search_activities.' That is a clear usage context, but it names no exclusions and does not contrast with alternatives such as show_word_search, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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