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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and return behavior. It states 'Query discarded,' which signals non-persistence, but it does not say what the tool returns, whether it reads external resources, or what happens when multiple or zero fields are provided. This is too thin for a 9-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the key behavior is front-loaded. Conciseness is appropriate even though completeness is lacking.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. An agent cannot tell which parameter(s) to fill, what value comes back, or why the extra fields exist.

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 input schema already documents all nine parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the search query; the schema's per-field descriptions carry the semantics.

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 action and object: count characters in a search query, and notes that the query is discarded. This is unambiguous at a surface level, but it does not position the tool against similar sibling length/shape tools, and the nine-parameter schema is not reconciled with the singular 'search query' framing.

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are given. The only usage signal is the verb itself ('count characters'), from which an agent can infer it should be used when a query length is needed, but there is no context about prerequisites, supported input types, or which of the many optional fields to pass.

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