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

The description does disclose that the query is discarded, which is a useful privacy behavior. However, with no annotations and no further explanation, it fails to disclose what the tool returns, whether there are side effects, or how discarding applies to the many unrelated parameters in the schema.

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 short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. Two sentences are not enough to compensate for the missing linkage between the stated purpose and the actual input schema.

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, no output schema, and a large set of parameters that seem unrelated to the description. It does not explain what the returned count looks like, which field carries the query, or why all the schema parameters are present. This is far from complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 schema provides descriptions for every parameter, but none of them is described as a search query; they are all described as discarded or shape-check values. The tool description does not map 'count characters in a search query' to any actual input, so an agent cannot determine what to pass.

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 names a specific operation, counting characters in a search query, so it is not a tautology. However, the input schema contains no 'query' parameter, and the listed parameters (ref, url, city, feed, json, path, etc.) appear unrelated, making the actual purpose confusing and failing to distinguish the tool from sibling shape/check 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory-key-count, validate-json, or the various '-ok' and '-shape' siblings. No context, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.

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