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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only states that the query is discarded, leaving return format, error behavior, and handling of non-query parameters unspecified.

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 very brief and both sentences convey relevant information. It could be considered too terse, but there is no redundant wording.

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 the tool accepts nine optional parameters and has no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent trying to decide what counts as input. It does not explain why unrelated parameters like ref, url, city, json, path, or zone are accepted or what happens when multiple are supplied.

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%, so a baseline score of 3 applies. The description adds little beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, and it does not clarify how the eight non-query parameters relate to the stated purpose.

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 clearly states the tool counts characters in a search query, using a specific verb and object. It is distinguishable from sibling count tools, though the presence of many unrelated optional parameters in the schema slightly blurs the intended 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites. The intended use must be inferred from the name and the single query-related parameter.

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