Word document to HTML

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a path, does not render PDF directly, and is 'free and unlimited.' This gives useful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover all edge cases.

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 sentences, concise, and well-structured. It covers purpose, output, and a key usage hint without fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with three well-documented parameters, the description provides enough context: converts docx to semantic HTML, returns path, supports PDF workflow, and is free/unlimited. It lacks an output schema but doesn't need one. Minor gaps like error behavior are not critical.

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 already fully describes all three parameters (path, out_path, overwrite) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about the conversion purpose but does not add new meaning to the parameters themselves, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 converts .docx to semantic HTML, mentions the output is a file path, and highlights its use for printing to PDF. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'This is the supported PDF route; no PDF is rendered here,' which directs when to use this tool (when HTML is needed for PDF output) and what to avoid (expecting direct PDF). While it doesn't name alternative tools, the condition is clear.

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