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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description correctly focuses on value-add: word-count validation (5-40), the exact direction rules behind each difficulty tier, duplicate-word detection, and reporting of words that could not be placed. It also discloses the two outputs — an on-screen playable puzzle and a printable PDF with answer key.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, then mechanics, then exclusions — no filler. Every clause carries either routing or behavioral 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 format needn't be detailed, yet the description still tells the agent a playable puzzle plus PDF/answer key come back. Input validation, difficulty semantics, and sibling exclusions are all covered for a 6-parameter 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds behavioral meaning beyond the schema: it explains that the word list is validated for duplicates and that unplaceable words are reported back. The difficulty tier descriptions largely restate the enum documentation already in the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 (generate a word search puzzle) and enumerates the user intents it serves (word find, word search maker, printable for kids/class). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from generate_crossword and from grid-scanning tools, so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants a word search puzzle ... from a list of words') and closes with two exclusions: not crosswords (use generate_crossword) and not finding words in a grid the user already has. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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