read_docx

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful behavior: supported input channels, plain-text versus markdown output, and the hard legacy .doc limitation. It omits URL/base64 error or size limits, but those are secondary for a read tool.

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 primary purpose and key option front-loaded, then the important exclusion last. No sentence is redundant or padded.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers extraction and markdown behavior adequately. However, it leaves the critical source-selection/requiredness rule and mimeType semantics unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a five-parameter tool with low schema coverage.

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 only 20%, with asMarkdown being the only documented parameter, so the description must compensate. It usefully maps path/url/base64 to input sources and explains markdown preservation, but it does not clarify mimeType or the required source-combination rule despite the schema showing no required parameters.

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 verb ('Extract text') and resource ('.docx Word document'), lists accepted source forms, and rules out legacy .doc. This clearly distinguishes it from format-specific siblings such as read_pdf and read_spreadsheet.

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 usage context via accepted input forms and a when-not constraint: legacy .doc is explicitly unsupported and must be converted. It also explains when to set asMarkdown=true, though it does not explicitly route non-docx files to sibling readers.

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