docx-to-markdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the tool's operational constraints (server-side file existence requirement, URL usage for remote files) and prerequisites (uploading local files first). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size restrictions, conversion accuracy, or error handling.

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 perfectly concise with three focused sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the core function, explaining parameter usage, and providing prerequisite guidance. There's no wasted verbiage and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the input options and prerequisites. However, it doesn't describe what the markdown output looks like (structure, formatting preservation) or potential conversion limitations, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing the 'url' vs 'filepath' distinction and the server-side requirement, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Convert a DOCX file to markdown') and resource (DOCX files), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'pdf-to-markdown' or 'pptx-to-markdown' which handle different file formats. It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter: 'url' for online files and 'filepath' only for server-side files, with an alternative action recommended ('upload them first via /upload endpoint' for local files). This clearly differentiates usage scenarios and mentions an alternative tool.

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