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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the in-chat interactive play, words crossing off, the returned text grid and printable PDF link, and determinism across chat/site/PDF.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and interactive behavior, then outputs, then the seed determinism note. No filler; each 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description still usefully previews them. For a read-only, closed-world tool with full param coverage, this 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that seed yields a new grid and that slug+seed deterministically reproduce the same grid in all contexts, which the schema does not convey.

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 (show) and resource (word search) plus the interactive behavior ('a child can play in the chat: drag across the letters'). This implicitly contrasts with the sibling make_word_search, but the distinction is never made explicit.

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?

Offers partial guidance ('Pass a seed for a new grid'), clarifying when to supply a seed versus omit it, but gives no explicit when-to-use-this vs make_word_search or get_activity routing. 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.