markdown_to_docx

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: processing is sandboxed Pandoc, images are never fetched and alt text is preserved, and a structural report is produced. These are behavioral facts not derivable from the 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?

Front-loads the core purpose and packs supported-feature detail efficiently. The clauses are dense and slightly run-on ('sandboxed Pandoc: ... links, code blocks'), but every sentence carries information relevant to invoking the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers conversion semantics and image handling. It nonetheless omits how output_path/report_path/overwrite behave (destination and file-clobbering behavior) for a tool whose default overwrite is false, leaving a gap for an agent deciding where output lands.

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 57%, with detail, encoding, and max_differences well documented in the schema itself. The description adds only an oblique reference ('The report checks...') and says nothing about output_path, report_path, or overwrite, so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameters. Baseline 3 fits.

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+resource (produce DOCX from Markdown) and enumerates supported constructs (CommonMark, pipe tables, strikethrough, headings, lists, tables, code blocks). It clearly identifies the conversion direction, though it never names the sibling markdown-family tools to differentiate itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (you have Markdown, you want DOCX), and the sandboxed-Pandoc note hints at the processing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the adjacent converters (txt_to_docx, docx_to_markdown, validate_conversion).

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