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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses file-size cap (10 MB), result caps (2,000 revisions/comments, 20,000-char field truncation), refusal-without-charge behavior for unsafe/over-limit files, typical latency (<2 s), price (USD 0.005, no free tier) and a prompt-injection caution on returned text. That is unusually complete operational context that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then constraints, then pricing — an efficient ordering. It is dense but nearly every clause carries a constraint; the header/footer exclusion is stated twice, which is minor redundancy.

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?

Covers capability, input form, coverage limitations, result shape (revisions/comments with authors, dates, anchors, replies), size and count limits, failure handling, latency and cost — everything needed to decide and call correctly. The output schema exists, and the description's mention of return fields is a bonus rather than a dependency.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the include_text behavior and body-only scope. The description restates those meanings and the 10 MB limit rather than adding new semantics, 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 — 'List DOCX insertions, deletions, moves, formatting changes and comments' — which is far more precise than the title alone. It is clearly separable from neighboring document tools like compare_documents or extract_pdf because it names the tracked-change artifact explicitly.

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 clear scoping: input is one DOCX as base64, 'Body and comments only; headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes and text boxes are not covered', and 'Run formatting only'. It does not name an alternative sibling (e.g. when to prefer compare_documents), so there is no explicit when-not routing.

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