check_docx_typography

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs style-chain resolution with provenance, returns only facts/anomaly flags, never gives formatting verdicts, and validates exactly one input form. It does not discuss error behavior or file-access limitations, but it covers the core behavior well.

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 two dense paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence immediately communicates the tool's output and resolution behavior, and the second paragraph covers input modes and constraints efficiently.

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 the output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It covers parameter semantics, input exclusivity, scope, and behavioral boundaries. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit sibling-based usage routing, which is partly addressed by the clear 'never a verdict' scope.

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?

The input schema has 0% property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains all three parameters: path as filesystem input, content_base64 as conversation-only inline input, and filename as required alongside base64. It also enforces the exclusive-OR constraint that the schema alone does not express.

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: it checks per-paragraph resolved font/size/weight in a .docx and emits anomaly flags. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like check_docx_structure and full_report by stating it returns facts and anomaly flags, never a verdict.

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?

The description gives clear invocation constraints: path OR content_base64, exactly one required, filename required with base64. However, it never explicitly says when an agent should choose this tool over its siblings, and the only comparison to alternatives is implicit through the scope declaration.

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