JotOak

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely new output behavior: the answer lives on page 2 of each PDF and answer placements are never returned as text, which materially changes how an agent should consume the result.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the value, then the output nuance. The middle clause ('instructions, vocabulary or clues and real printable files') is slightly compressed and reads awkwardly, but nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description usefully adds the PDF/answer-page behavior. The only real gap is the undocumented 'paper' enum, which the description leaves entirely unexplained.

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 50%: the required 'id' parameter is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces its origin (exact id from search_puzzles). However, the 'paper' enum (letter/a4) is unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Get) and resource (one exact published puzzle), and explicitly anchors it to the sibling by naming search_puzzles as the id source. It also enumerates what the payload contains (instructions, vocabulary or clues, printable files), so the tool is distinguishable from search_puzzles without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'one exact published puzzle ID from search_puzzles' clearly implies the workflow: search first, then fetch a specific result. It stops short of an explicit when-not clause (e.g., use search_puzzles when you have no id), so it is strong but not fully routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload ('real source pages and Letter/A4 PDF links') and noting that difficulty/large print/holiday only apply to word searches. Remaining gaps (pagination via offset/limit, result ordering) are modest.

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 with zero filler: purpose first, then return format, then filter options, then scope exclusions. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to select or invoke the tool.

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 spelled out, and the description still sketches them helpfully; annotations carry the safety profile. The one shortfall is the undocumented pagination parameters, which the description does not clarify despite the 50% schema coverage.

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 only 50%, and kind, limit, offset and holiday are undocumented there. The description partially compensates by enumerating the three puzzle kinds and calling out the word-search-only filters, but says nothing about pagination semantics (limit/offset), leaving the agent to infer them from the schema alone.

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 (Search) and resource (JotOak's published word searches, crosswords and mazes) plus the scope limit of published content only. An agent immediately knows this is a filtered list/retrieval operation, though it never names the sibling get_puzzle to contrast retrieve-one vs search-many.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not: 'No custom generation or math archive search,' which steers agents away from expecting generative or off-catalog results. It does not, however, point to get_puzzle for fetching a specific already-identified puzzle, so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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