read_word_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cache optimization' but doesn't explain caching behavior (e.g., cache duration, invalidation). It doesn't disclose performance characteristics, error handling, or what 'enhanced' means operationally. The description adds some context about extraction capabilities but leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('enhanced Word document reader') followed by key features. Every phrase adds value, though it could be slightly more structured by separating core function from optional capabilities.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (document content? structured data? metadata?), how extracted tables/images are formatted, or what 'memoryKey' storage enables. The agent lacks critical information about the tool's outputs and behavioral guarantees.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'extractImages' interacts with 'outputDir') or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function as an 'enhanced Word document reader' with specific capabilities (table extraction, image OCR analysis, cache optimization). It distinguishes itself from basic readers by mentioning these advanced features, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_stored_document' or 'search_documents' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this enhanced reader is preferable over simpler tools, nor does it reference any sibling tools for comparison. The agent must infer usage from the feature list alone.

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