docx_document_xml_sanitizer

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'eliminates' security threats but does not disclose what it returns, whether it modifies the original file, how unsafe content is handled, or what errors may occur. The payment mention is cost information, not behavioral transparency.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that quickly communicates purpose and key threat eliminations. The parenthetical pricing note is slightly extraneous to tool behavior, but it is brief and does not obscure the main message.

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 that there is no output schema and the payload parameter is described generically, an agent still lacks critical information: how to pass the DOCX input, what the sanitized result looks like, and what counts as successful execution. The description does not fill these gaps, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the payload description is generic ('Input parameters or JSON string payload for the tool execution') and does not explain what the DOCX payload should look like, such as base64 content, file path, or JSON structure. The description adds no parameter-level detail to compensate.

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 names a specific verb ('Unpacks and parses'), a clear resource ('Microsoft Office DOCX XML packages'), and the intended safety outcome ('eliminating XXE vulnerabilities, malicious VBA macros, and hidden remote tracking web bugs'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling sanitizers like sanitize_sql_query or strip_prompt_injection, which target different formats.

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 context is implied rather than explicit: the tool is meant for safely processing untrusted DOCX files. However, there is no direct statement about when to choose it over similar sibling tools, nor any exclusion or alternative mentioned.

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