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

The description does disclose that the query is discarded and thus indicates a stateless operation, which is useful. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description carries more responsibility and does not explain the return format, side effects, or any other behavioral details.

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 entire description is two short, purposeful sentences. It states the core action and a behavioral note about the query being discarded without any filler or repetition.

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?

With nine parameters, zero required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the query parameter and its discard behavior. It does not explain what the tool returns, why the other parameters are present, or how duration/result might be surfaced, leaving the description usable.

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?

Parameter satisfaction is high at 100%, so the schema fully documents all properties. The description only adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by tying it to character counting, while it does not clarify whether the other eight parameters are truly irrelevant to this tool.

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?

Description clearly states it counts characters in a search query and that the query is discarded. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling count tools like memory-key-count or hn-front-count, leaving some ambiguity about which specific input is the query.

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, nor which parameters should be passed for the basic use case. The discard statement implies statelessness, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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