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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the query is discarded, which is helpful, but it does not state that the other eight parameters appear to be ignored, what the return value looks like, or how empty/invalid input is handled. For a nine-parameter tool, this is insufficient.

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 only two short sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for the unusual parameter list.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and nine optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value, clarify that only query is used, or explain the purpose of the unrelated parameters, leaving too much to inference.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it identifies the relevant input as a search query, but it does not clarify why eight unrelated optional parameters are accepted or which ones actually affect the result.

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 states a clear action and resource: count characters in a search query. It adds a useful side-effect note with 'Query discarded.' It does not distinguish this tool from sibling counting/checking tools, so it misses the top score.

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 usage is implied: call this when you need the character length of a search query. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives, what input format is expected, or when not to use it.

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