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

Annotations are mostly negative hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds useful details: the file path, block count, layout used, and an availability claim ('Free and unlimited'). It does not contradict the annotations and describes the return behavior without an output schema.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Call this tool to write...') and quickly covering return values and availability. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or 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?

Given a 7-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description provides the necessary return-value context. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though explicit routing among sibling document tools would make it stronger.

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 parameter descriptions already explain every input. The tool description adds little to param semantics beyond the phrase 'structured sections', which reflects the existing sections parameter. Therefore a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'write a real .docx file from structured sections.' This is precise enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like doc_from_markdown or doc_fill_template, even without naming them. It also identifies key return values, further clarifying the tool's role.

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?

'Call this tool to write a real .docx file from structured sections' gives a direct and clear instruction on the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or point to an alternative for markdown input, templates, or proposals.

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