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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects and operational behavior, but it only repeats 'Query discarded,' which is already stated in the schema. It does not clarify whether any network/IO happens, whether it is purely local, what it returns, or whether other parameters are simply ignored. This repeats schema information instead of adding behavioral context.

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, comprising two short sentences that deliver the core purpose and one key discard behavior without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no required parameters, and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., integer character count), whether other parameters should be ignored, or the practical intent of the count. This leaves the agent uncertain about call expectations and return value, making the description inadequate for full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all parameters, so the description is not required to list or re-explain them. However, the description does not explicitly indicate which parameter is the 'search query' – though the schema's 'query' entry clarifies that. The description adds little beyond the existing schema, but baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 uses a clear, specific verb ('Count') and a resource ('search query'), which matches the tool name 'search-query-len' and distinguishes it from sibling shape/format checkers. It is not a tautology and states the core function in a single sentence.

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 choose this tool over alternatives such as lang-tk (token counting) or memory-key-count. There is no mention of suitable contexts, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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