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

The description explicitly states that the query is discarded, providing some transparency about side effects. However, it does not mention whether other parameters are also ignored or if any state is modified, and with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 a single, clear sentence. It is concise, contains no redundancy, and is well-structured, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 description omits important context: it does not explain the role of the many other parameters in the schema, nor does it specify the return value or behavior for empty or missing queries. Given the tool's simplicity, this leaves gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly.

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 describes 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters themselves; it only references the query parameter. The schema descriptions are sufficient, but the description does not enhance understanding beyond that.

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 clearly states the tool counts characters in a search query, which is a specific action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though no sibling appears to perform character counting, so it is functionally unique.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any related tools or conditions under which this tool would be preferred, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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