Read a Word document

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description does not need to establish safety. It does add useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the return shape (heading outline plus document-order text, or block structure) and the cost/throughput note 'Free and unlimited'. It still omits password/permission handling and behavior on malformed files, so a 3 is fair.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler; 'Free and unlimited' is a compact, high-value trailing note. The lead-in phrase 'Call this tool to' is mild boilerplate but does not bloat the text.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description adequately explains what is returned (heading outline, full text in document order, or block structure). Combined with a fully-covered input schema and complete annotations, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though explicit routing versus sibling readers is still 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 both parameters (path, format) are fully documented in the schema, including the .doc/.rtf exclusions and the enum semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond this, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (extract text) and resource (.docx), and the format-targeting language ('block structure', 'outline of the headings') makes it clearly a Word reader. It does not name or contrast itself against the many sibling read tools (resume_read, pdf_text, sheet_read), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though the toolset contains several other text-extraction tools (pdf_text, resume_read, sheet_read). The agent is left to infer that this is the .docx-specific reader from the description alone.

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