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

The description discloses one useful behavioral trait: 'Query discarded,' indicating the search text is not retained. However, with no annotations, it does not cover other important details like return format, error behavior, or what happens when multiple non-query parameters are provided.

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 no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the discard note is relevant. It could add a tiny bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool accepts 9 optional parameters and has no output schema or annotations, yet the description only mentions a generic 'search query.' It does not state the return type, the behavior when multiple parameters are provided, or which parameters are actually needed, making it incomplete for reliable 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 all 9 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond implying the relevant parameter is `query`, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific operation ('Count characters') on a 'search query,' which aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from URL/JSON/path validators among siblings. However, it does not explicitly identify the `query` property among the 9 schema parameters, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate-json, normalize-url, or file-path-ok. The discard note is behavioral rather than selectional, so an agent gets no help choosing this tool over siblings.

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