docx-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that search is case-insensitive and can use regex, and describes the return format. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, pagination, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'search' implies it).

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and return information. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be more integrated with the natural language flow.

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 tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides adequate context. It covers purpose, parameters, and return format, though it could benefit from more behavioral context about limitations or performance.

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 clearly explains both parameters: 'query' as text or regex pattern, and 'regex' as a boolean flag controlling interpretation. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify regex syntax details.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Search for text') and scope ('across the document body, footnotes, and comments'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_comments or get_footnotes which retrieve specific parts rather than searching across all content.

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 implies usage for text searching but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_paragraph or audit_document. No guidance is provided about prerequisites (e.g., needing an open document) or exclusions.

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