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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful trait — 'Query discarded' — signaling a stateless, non-persistent computation with no side effects, which the schema descriptions reinforce. However, it does not specify the return format of the count or behavior when multiple parameters are supplied, and it never clarifies whether all nine accepted inputs are likewise discarded.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the discard behavior following immediately. No filler, no repetition of schema details, no wasted words. Appropriately sized for the described function.

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 tool with nine heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain why url, city, feed, host, json, path, ref, and zone are accepted, what the tool returns, or how it relates to the sibling shape-checking tools. The 100% schema coverage partially compensates, but the tool-level behavior remains underspecified.

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 of 3 applies. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that the 'query' parameter is character-counted, consistent with the schema's 'discarded after the length check,' but it does not explain the other eight parameters or why they exist in a tool described as counting search-query characters.

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 names a specific operation — counting characters in a search query — and notes the query is discarded, which is more than a tautology. However, it describes only one of the nine schema parameters (query); the tool also accepts ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, and zone, none of which obviously relate to a search query. It also does not differentiate this tool from sibling counting tools like memory-key-count or hn-front-count.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit exclusions, no named sibling tools, and no acknowledgment that the schema accepts eight parameter types beyond search queries. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is for query-length checks.

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