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

'Query discarded' is a genuine behavioral disclosure and is useful because no annotations are provided. However, the description does not clarify whether the operation is purely local, what side effects occur with the other optional fields, or what the return value looks like.

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, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The discarded-input note earns its place as a meaningful behavioral signal.

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 no visible 'query' parameter, the description is too thin for confident invocation. It communicates intent but not the input contract or the expected return shape beyond an implicit character count.

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 schema descriptions cover the listed parameters, which normally earns a baseline 3, but the description's central input — the search query — does not map to any property in the schema ('query' is absent; the listed properties are ref/url/city/feed/host/json/path). The description therefore adds no usable parameter guidance and leaves the agent unable to determine which field to populate.

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 verb and resource — counting characters in a search query — and this clearly distinguishes it from sibling validation/counting tools. It is concise and unambiguous about intent, though it does not map the 'search query' to a visible input parameter.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as memory-key-count or validate-json. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative-tool hints in the description.

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