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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the single behavioral note 'Query discarded' but does not disclose how the other eight parameters are handled, whether there is network access, or what the return value looks like—major gaps for a safe and correct invocation.

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 contain no filler and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, but almost under-specified in a way that hurts clarity rather than being a model of restraint.

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?

For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid. It neither explains the role of the extra parameters nor the return value, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly in the broader context of sibling tools.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description only refers to 'query' while ignoring the other eight parameters. It does not explain why they exist or whether they are ignored or subject to the same length check, so it fails to add meaning beyond the schema and actually creates ambiguity.

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 clear action—'Count characters in a search query'—with a specific resource (search query). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools as the schema exposes nine parameters, none of which are mentioned by name or role.

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 use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of a recommended scenario, deprecated conditions, or how this tool relates to similar length/count tools among its siblings.

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