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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the safety burden, and 'Query discarded' does convey that the query is not stored or reused. It does not state whether the many unrelated optional parameters are ignored, but for a pure counting tool the main side-effect concern is addressed.

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 sentences with no filler, and the core verb 'Count' is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying data handling.

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?

Despite having 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives no return shape and no guidance on how the other fields relate to the query-counting task. The parameter descriptions cover individual semantics but not the overall invocation contract, leaving an agent uncertain about output or whether extra fields are processed.

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 provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond identifying the search query as the thing counted; it does not clarify the role of the other eight optional fields or how they relate to the query.

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 operation—count characters in a search query—and adds that the query is discarded. This makes the core function unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling counting tools.

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 intended use is implied by the verb phrase: call it when a search-query character count is needed. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer routing from the name and sibling tools.

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