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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says the query is discarded. It does not mention whether the other parameters are ignored, what output format is returned (e.g., integer length), or error conditions. The repeated 'discarded' phrasing hints at no side effects, but fails to specify return values or exceptions.

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, using a single sentence to convey the operation and side-effect-free nature. There is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is straightforward and easy to parse.

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 the lack of an output schema and the presence of numerous sibling tools with similar 'shape'/'check' patterns, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the return value or how this tool differs from alternatives. It does not explain whether only 'query' is read, what data type is returned, or how to handle the unrelated inputs. The tool feels under-specified in context.

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?

Although every parameter has a description, most descriptions are unhelpful tautologies like 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' or 'City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call'. Only the 'query' parameter description ('Search text; discarded after the length check') aligns with the tool's stated purpose, leaving the other eight parameters semantically confusing and arguably irrelevant.

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 the tool counts characters in a search query and that the query is discarded, which is a clear primary purpose. However, the input schema includes eight unrelated optional string parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone), which muddies the intended scope. The name and description focus on query, but the schema suggests broader or ambiguous applicability.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings such as 'normalize-url', 'domain-shape', or 'think-steps'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or alternative tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when an agent should choose it.

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