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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does it well: it discloses the free/paid quota boundary, that native letters occupy a single cell, the exact output shape (grid plus words that did not fit), the '-' empty-cell convention, and seed determinism. It leaves error behavior when words cannot be placed and any auth requirements unstated.

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?

Purpose leads, then constraints, then output and the handoff to fill_word_search. Five sentences, each carrying distinct information — quota terms, character handling, return contents, empty-cell marker, determinism — with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain returns and constraints itself; it covers grid contents, unplaced words, empty-cell marking, determinism, and the quota model. An agent has everything needed to call it and to chain it with fill_word_search.

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 100%, so rows, cols, seed, lang, position, difficulty, clustering, and classicMode are already documented; the description's statements about seed reproducibility largely restate the schema. It adds only marginal parameter meaning, such as native letters occupying one cell, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'Create a word-search puzzle (sopa de letras) from a list of words' — and names the sibling that continues the workflow (fill_word_search), so an agent can separate it from crossword/sudoku without opening a 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?

Explains the quota condition that governs when the tool is usable ('up to 10x10 with at most 10 words are free and unlimited; bigger ones use the free puzzles each client gets') and explicitly routes follow-up work to fill_word_search. It never states when to prefer this over the sibling puzzle generators, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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