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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the query is discarded, which is a useful transparency point, but it does not disclose what happens with the other eight parameters, whether the operation is read-only, what the return value is, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple 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 extremely short ('Count characters in a search query. Query discarded.'), which is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. The conciseness is not appropriately sized; it omits critical information about the other parameters and expected behavior.

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 has 9 parameters, all optional, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain why the other parameters exist, what the tool does with them, or what the return format is. An agent would struggle to understand the full scope and correct invocation of this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including the 'query' parameter with its description 'Search text; discarded after the length check'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the purpose. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not compensate beyond that.

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 core action: counting characters in a search query. The verb 'count' and resource 'search query' are specific. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like memory-key-count or hn-front-count, which also involve counting lengths of specific inputs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions that the query is discarded, which implies a stateless check, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing it over similar counting tools.

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