audit_document_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by detailing what the audit reports on (headers, footers, images, tables, tracked changes, comments, unsupported elements), reinforcing its non-mutating nature without contradicting annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object, then immediately lists the specific report categories. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of a full input schema and output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it reports. The list of auditable elements is sufficiently specific, and the output schema handles return-value documentation.

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 input schema covers both parameters with full descriptions: document_path requires an absolute path and format enumerates text/json with a default. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') with a clear resource ('.docx file') and scope ('structural issues and skipped content'). It lists concrete report categories, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_changes and validate_document_tool.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: to audit a .docx file for structural issues and skipped content. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over write-oriented or fragment-manipulation tools.

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