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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral context. It states 'Query discarded', which discloses a memory/side-effect behavior that is relevant for agents. It also notes a similar semantic in query's schema description. However, it does not mention the behavior of the other parameter(s)-whether they are also discarded, ignored, or used—nor does it describe normal response format or side effects beyond disposal.

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: one stating the action and one stating the discard behavior. No filler, fully front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for a simple operation.

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 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient. It omits return format (e.g., integer character count), which of the parameters to select, and the significance of the other fields. The tool's complexity and lack of structured context call for more explanation to let an agent call 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 descriptions already cover all 9 parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The main description adds only 'search query' context, aligning to the 'query' parameter. It does not explain how or whether the other 8 optional parameters relate to the tool's operation, which is a notable gap outside the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 specific verb ('Count') and resource ('characters in a search query'), which clearly identifies the core action. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like sentence-count or memory-key-count by the explicit focus on 'search query'. However, the input schema contains 9 unrelated optional parameters, creating mild ambiguity about which parameter constitutes the 'search 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory-key-count or sentence-count. The description does not state use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, and the 9-parameter schema with no required fields further blurs when to call it. An agent cannot determine from the description which of the many provided strings to pass or when it is applicable.

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