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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing the return shape ('real files and source pages') and a negative scope boundary ('does not search hidden word lists'), which tells the agent what results it will and won't get.

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 no filler: the first states what can be searched, the second states what is returned and what is excluded. Front-loading the action and resource makes it scannable.

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 needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. However, with six parameters at 0% schema coverage and undocumented pagination/enum semantics, the definition is only adequate for correct invocation in the general case.

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 parameter burden. It names the concepts ('title, theme, description, topic, category and paper size') but never maps them to the query vs topic vs category vs paper fields, gives no meaning to the hard/large-print or topic enum values, and leaves limit/offset pagination (max 12, max offset 42) entirely undocumented.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search published frozen puzzles') and enumerates the searchable fields, so the agent knows exactly what is being matched. It distinguishes itself from get_puzzle only implicitly via the verb 'Search', which is clear enough but stops short of an explicit contrast.

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 by the word 'Search' versus the sibling 'get_puzzle', and the scope word 'published' signals when this tool applies. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_puzzle, nor any note about prerequisites or empty-result behavior.

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