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

The description discloses that the input query is discarded, which is a useful side-effect trait given that no annotations exist. However, it does not state the return format, behavior with multiple or missing parameters, or whether any external calls are made, leaving much of the burden unmet.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by disclosing that the query is discarded.

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?

Despite the simple core action, the tool has nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not specify that the query parameter should be used, what the return value looks like, or what happens if no parameters are provided, so it is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 documents all nine parameters, including the query parameter as 'Search text; discarded after the length check.' The tool description adds little beyond the word 'search query' and does not clarify why the other eight optional parameters are present, so it stays at the high-coverage baseline.

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 a specific operation: count characters in a search query. 'Query discarded' adds the lifecycle of the input. It does not explicitly name the query parameter or explain how it differs from sibling tools, but the action is distinctive enough to be identifiable.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name and schema which input to supply and when this is preferable to similar validation or counting tools.

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