docx_to_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the conversion result and price but does not disclose side effects, output format behavior, or anything about how the conversion is performed beyond preservation of elements.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that conveys the key action and scope. The price note is brief and arguably useful for cost-aware agents; no wasted words.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the output enum/default, what output_path does, or what the return value looks like, so an agent may not invoke it optimally or interpret the response correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only that 'file' is a local path; it says nothing about 'output', 'output_path', or 'idempotency_key', leaving the default output='json' potentially surprising given the claimed Markdown output.

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 ('Extract'), names the resource (Word .docx local path), and specifies the output as clean Markdown with headings, lists, and tables preserved. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like md_to_docx, xlsx_to_markdown, and pdf_to_markdown.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pdf_to_markdown or office_to_pdf. The description implies input-type selection (a .docx file) but provides no exclusions or routing cues.

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