Read document

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that HWP/HWPX work without Hancom Office (a useful environmental fact) and that markdown preserves structure where available, but it doesn't mention error behavior (e.g., unsupported formats, encrypted files without a password) or output size limits.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the supported formats and end with a usage cue. No filler, though the parenthetical about Hancom Office is a tangent that slightly dilutes the core 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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, supported formats, and a basic usage condition. It could be more complete by mentioning what the extracted output looks like or how errors are handled, but it's adequate for correct 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 schema already documents all three parameters with useful details (absolute path requirement, markdown vs text semantics, password usage). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (extract text) and the exact resource types it handles, including a clarifying parenthetical about Korean word processors. The scope is instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like doc_convert and image_edit.

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 second sentence, 'Use when the model needs to read what a file says,' implies a read context but doesn't contrast with siblings like doc_convert (which likely transforms or outputs a new file) or pdf_info (which likely extracts metadata). No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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