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 explaining side effects. It only says 'Query discarded,' giving minimal behavioral information. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or how it handles errors or invalid input.

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 and front-loaded, using only two short sentences. No words are wasted, and the core purpose is stated immediately.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, what constitutes a valid query, or any error/edge-case behavior.

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 every parameter has a schema description, most of those descriptions are irrelevant to the stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'IANA timezone name'). The tool description itself provides no clarification about which of the 9 optional parameters should be used, leaving ambiguity about whether non-query parameters are ignored.

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 action ('Count characters in a search query') but does not explicitly identify which input parameter is the search query, especially given the schema contains 9 unrelated optional parameters. It is clear enough at a surface level but leaves ambiguity about the intended resource/input.

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 any of the many sibling tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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