well-010-docx-to-text

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: cost ($0.005 USDC via x402), caps (10 MB, ~15s, 5 redirects), table placeholder format, unicode dash normalization, and 'nothing stored / as is, no warranty.' This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure the 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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then input modes, constraints, caps, output shape. Nearly every clause earns its place, though some constraint text duplicates the schema and could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by spelling out the return JSON ({ file, url, final_url, type, text, tables, warnings }), plus all relevant limits and normalization behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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. The description reinforces the url constraint (https only) and docx_base64 (max 10 MB), but this largely restates what the schema already documents, and 'filename' is left to the schema entirely. Marginal value beyond the structured fields.

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: 'Extract text and tables from a Word .docx file.' The scope is unambiguous and, with no siblings to confuse it with, an agent immediately knows what the tool does and what artifact it operates on.

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 context for use: accepts a public https URL or docx_base64, explicitly rejects http/file/data/localhost/private IPs, and rules out old binary .doc files. No alternatives are named, but none exist (no sibling tools), so the guidance is as complete as the environment allows.

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