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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Query discarded,' which vaguely implies no retention, but does not clarify whether other parameters are ignored, validated, or used, nor does it describe the return value or side effects. This is severely insufficient.

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 concise with only two sentences and no filler words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently compact.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the behavior for non-query parameters, the output format, error conditions, or whether validation occurs. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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?

While the schema provides 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema states. It fails to identify which parameter is the 'search query' or explain how the other parameters relate to the operation, potentially misleading the agent into thinking all are required or relevant.

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) and a resource (search query), but it is ambiguous which parameter corresponds to the query given the schema has 9 unrelated parameters. It also fails to distinguish from sibling shape-checker tools, as the name suggests a length operation but the schema includes fields like url, city, and zone with no explanation of their role.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without direction for selection among many similar validation tools.

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