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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'Query discarded,' which suggests the input is not retained. With no annotations provided, the description still fails to mention what is returned, whether any validation or normalization occurs, or why the schema descriptions mention actions like 'normalize or cite' and 'validate.' The tool's actual behavior beyond discarding the query remains opaque.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences with no filler. 'Query discarded' is a useful extra behavioral note. The brevity is appropriate, though it sacrifices necessary detail elsewhere.

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 string parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a description that does not map the operation to the parameters, the definition is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine what input to provide, what the tool will do with it, or what the return value will be.

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 every parameter already has a description, but the tool description refers to a 'search query' that appears nowhere among the parameters. It does not clarify which property should be treated as the query, nor how fields like url, city, feed, host, json, and path relate to counting characters. This mismatch adds confusion instead of semantic value.

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 specific action ('Count characters in a search query') and a behavioral note ('Query discarded'), so the basic purpose is understandable. However, it never identifies which of the nine schema properties is the 'search query', and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from sibling counting tools like hn-front-count or memory-key-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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about the intended scenario, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and the sparse description.

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