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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Query discarded,' which is a minor side-effect note. It does not reveal that the tool likely ignores all parameters except 'query', whether it performs any network/disk access, what it returns, or any failure modes. This is insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 two short sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and includes a behavioral note ('Query discarded'). It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is severely incomplete: it doesn't specify the return value (presumably the character count), doesn't explain the role of the other 8 parameters, doesn't mention any side effects beyond discarding the query, and provides no error handling or usage context. This is far below what an agent needs to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't clarify which parameter is the search query (though the 'query' field is obvious) or how the other parameters are treated. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling counting tools like memory-key-count or hn-front-count, and it doesn't clarify that only the 'query' parameter is relevant given the schema's many other parameters.

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. The description does not mention when it is appropriate to call it, when not to, or suggest any sibling tools for comparison. An agent would have no idea whether this is the right tool for a given counting task.

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