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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds concrete output behavior (document-order text plus outline, or block structure) and a 'free and unlimited' note. No contradiction with 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 short sentences with the action and result front-loaded; no filler or restatement of schema details. 'Free and unlimited' is brief and adds useful context.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (outline, full text, block structure) and the usage context. The schema handles parameter details, so nothing essential 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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters at 100% coverage, including the format enum, so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. The 'block structure' phrase only loosely maps to format=json.

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 action and resource: 'extract the text of an existing .docx,' and describes the returned content (outline, full text, block structure). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/delete/upload/convert tools.

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 when to call the tool: to read and extract text from an already-existing .docx. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using doc_to_html for HTML conversion, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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