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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait the schema cannot: a paid x402 call costing 0.03 USDC on Base. However it omits size limits, auth/access requirements for the URL, and failure behavior for non-docx or unreachable URLs.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the action, the input, and the payment constraint in brackets. Nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter extraction tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the input type, the return type ('devuelve su texto'), and the pricing model. Remaining gaps (failure modes, size limits) are minor.

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 nominally 100% but the schema description is only the meaningless placeholder 'service input'. The description's 'input=URL' fills that gap by telling the agent the parameter is a URL, which is real added meaning.

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: downloads a .docx from a URL and returns its text. The format (docx) inherently distinguishes it from leer-pdf, leer-xlsx, and leer-url, though it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is implied by 'por URL' — the agent can infer it is for .docx documents reachable over HTTP. There is no explicit when-to-use vs leer-pdf/leer-xlsx/leer-url guidance and no exclusions (e.g., what if the URL is not a docx).

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