com_readability_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: it uses Word's own engine, requires Word installed, opens an invisible instance, and is read-only. This gives an agent a solid model of side effects and prerequisites.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the tool produces, the main prerequisite, and the behavior. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, the description omits an explanation of the file_path parameter and does not discuss when to prefer this tool over word_count or com_word_status, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

The schema has only file_path with no description and 0% schema coverage, so the description needed to define acceptable path values or constraints. It does not mention file_path at all, leaving the sole parameter under-specified beyond its name.

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 identifies the tool as computing Word's own readability statistics via COM and enumerates the specific outputs (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, word/sentence/paragraph counts, averages). This distinguishes it from related tools like word_count or get_document_info.

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 gives clear usage context by requiring Word to be installed and noting that an invisible Word instance is opened. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the conditions for use are clear enough.

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