WordSearchClub

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that hard target words and solution paths are deliberately omitted from the response — but says nothing about error handling for malformed or missing IDs, nor about the optionality of 'paper'.

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 compact sentences with the primary outcome (get the puzzle and files) front-loaded and the caveat about omitted data trailing. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing 'Get a real ... puzzle ID' is slightly ambiguous about whether it returns an ID or takes one.

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 shape need not be spelled out, and the annotations cover safety. What remains uncovered is behavior on invalid IDs, the optional-vs-required status of 'paper', and any routing to search_puzzles — gaps that matter for a two-parameter fetch tool.

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. It does partially: 'category/slug puzzle ID' explains the id shape (matching the hard/... or large-print/... pattern) and 'Letter/A4' maps to the paper enum. However it never states that 'paper' is optional, what the default is, or which categories are valid, leaving real gaps.

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 (puzzle) and enumerates what comes back: a fixed grid plus Letter/A4 puzzle and answer PDFs. It is clearly a by-ID fetch, which contrasts implicitly with the sibling search_puzzles, but the description never names that sibling so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of search_puzzles as the alternative for discovery. The agent must infer from the required 'id' parameter that this is the follow-up call after a search, which is reasonable but undocumented.

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, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the corpus is a fixed set of 24 puzzles (consistent with the closed-world hint), it returns real files and source pages, and it deliberately excludes hidden word lists.

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 core action and corpus size, with the negative constraint ('does not search hidden word lists') placed last. No filler and nothing that could be cut.

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-value detail is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is pagination semantics and how multiple query terms combine across fields, which an agent would need before paging through 24 results.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load and only partly does: it names the searchable fields but never maps them to specific parameters (query vs topic vs category) and says nothing about limit/offset pagination. The three enums are self-describing by value but their meaning is not elaborated anywhere.

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 ('Search ... puzzles') and enumerates the searchable facets (title, theme, description, topic, category, paper size), so an agent knows exactly what this does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_puzzle, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: naming searchable facets suggests this is the discovery tool used when you only know a partial attribute. There is no explicit 'use this instead of get_puzzle when...' routing and no stated prerequisites or when-not-to-use condition.

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