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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the query is discarded, which is useful side-effect information, but it fails to clarify what counts as a query, whether any input state changes, or what the returned value represents beyond a character count.

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 only two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function and adds the discard note as a separate concise sentence; every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, yet the description omits the input mapping, return format, and relationship to the seven schema fields. For a tool with so many sibling shape/check operations, this level of detail is far too thin for an agent to invoke 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 description adds no meaning to the schema's parameters because 'search query' is not among the documented fields. Although every schema field has its own description, none of those fields (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) is explained as the query input, so the description cannot help the agent choose or fill parameters correctly.

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 verb and object ('Count characters in a search query'), but this is largely a restatement of the tool name and does not specify where the query comes from. The input schema exposes seven unrelated fields (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) with no search-query parameter, so the agent cannot connect the purpose to an actual invocation. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling length/shape tools such as memory-key-count.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use search-query-len instead of any of the sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, preconditions, or excluded cases, and the mismatched schema makes the intended trigger even less discoverable.

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