Read a Word document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return behavior: outline of headings, full text in document order, or block structure, and notes that usage is free and unlimited. 'Extract' also implies a non-destructive read operation, though it does not explicitly state 'does not modify the file.'

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 short, front-loaded with the invocation guidance, and delivers the output behavior in a singlefollow-up sentence. The 'Free and unlimited' note is brief and adds useful operational context without bloating the description.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential decision and invocation information: what file type to target, what the tool returns, and the two output flavors. Nothing critical is missing.

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 fully documents both 'path' and 'format.' The description's mention of outline/headings and block structure loosely maps to the format enum, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'extract the text of an existing .docx.' It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like doc_to_html, pdf_text, and resume_read by specifying the .docx text-extraction behavior and the outline/block-structure output.

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 opening phrase 'Call this tool to extract the text of an existing .docx' gives explicit guidance on when to use it. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for reading .docx text.

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