Word Tool Help

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context, notably 'Reads no document' (so an agent knows it is side-effect-free with respect to document state) and what each mode returns. It doesn't cover caching or size of the returned listing, but that is minor.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the read-only framing and the primary trigger, then the three mode behaviors. Every clause carries information; no filler or restatement.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what each invocation mode returns (tool/op listing, op arguments + example + owning tool, location explanation). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 already 100%, and the description goes further by stating the behavioral consequence of each parameter: omitting `op` lists everything, supplying it yields arguments + an example call + the running tool, and `topic='location'` explains the location object. That is meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions, though it doesn't add format details for op names.

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?

It states a specific function: reading help/metadata about the word tools and their ops, not touching documents. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (which all act on documents) via 'Reads no document.' The only slight weakness is that 'help' alone is generic, but the description resolves it by enumerating what help content it returns.

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?

It gives explicit triggers ('when an op's arguments are unclear or after a BAD_PARAMS refusal') and maps each invocation mode to an outcome: no args lists every tool and op, `op` returns that op's arguments plus an example and owning tool, `topic='location'` explains the location object. Nothing is left to inference about when or how to call it.

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