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

Annotations are sparse (all hints false), so the description carries an added burden. It discloses return behavior (returns the path of the .html file), output characteristics ('semantic HTML'), and the negative behavior that no PDF is rendered. The 'Free and unlimited' note adds practical context beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences front-load the core purpose and usage, then state return behavior and a key limitation. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential context: what it converts, what it returns, why to use it, and what it does not do. The schema covers parameter specifics, making the overall definition complete.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (path, out_path, overwrite). The description adds high-level context such as .docx input and .html output but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific action ('convert a .docx to semantic HTML'), names the output format, and clarifies the purpose ('open in a browser and print to PDF'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like doc_read and doc_from_markdown by identifying this as the HTML conversion/PDF route.

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?

The description explicitly states when to call the tool: to produce HTML from a .docx for browser viewing and PDF printing. It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('no PDF is rendered here'), giving helpful context for routing, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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