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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description nevertheless adds real behavior: grids grow to fit long words, errors enumerate the rule violations (too few words, >20 letters, word inside another), and a PDF with answer key is produced. It stops short of describing pagination/return shape, but the output schema exists.

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?

Four tight sentences. The primary action and output are front-loaded, with input flexibility, edge behavior, and error semantics following in that order. Every sentence carries information.

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?

Given an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers input flexibility, grid-growth edge case, and error messaging. It leaves minor gaps on PDF link behavior and how the in-chat rendering works, but the picture is essentially complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents seed, level, title, and words with enums and bounds. The description reinforces the array-vs-string flexibility and the grid-growth rule, but adds little the schema doesn't already state. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (make/turn) + resource (word search) + input (spelling list), with concrete outputs named: a playable search in chat and a PDF link with answer key. Clearly distinct from siblings like show_word_search (view-only) and list_products.

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?

Establishes the trigger (a list of 4–20 words, like a spelling list) and covers accepting either a string or array. It does not, however, route the agent to alternatives such as show_word_search or clarify when to prefer one format over another.

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