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 mentions that the query is discarded, but does not explain the fate of the other eight parameters, return format, or side effects. The schema descriptions individually note discarding, but the tool-level description is nearly silent.

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 short sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a behavioral note about discarding. However, it is concise at the expense of necessary detail.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (presumably a character count), why the other parameters exist, or how they are handled. This is incomplete for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description that indicates whether it is used or discarded. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not help clarify which parameter is essential.

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 clear action ('Count characters in a search query') with a specific resource, but the 9-parameter schema with many unrelated fields (url, city, json, etc.) creates confusion about which input is actually used. It does not differentiate from sibling counting tools like hn-front-count or memory-key-count, though the name is distinctive.

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, no exclusions, and no context for why it accepts so many parameters. An agent would have to infer that only the 'query' parameter is relevant.

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