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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states that the query is discarded, implying no side effects, but it does not explain return behavior, failure modes, or what happens if the query is absent or empty.

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 concise and contains no filler. It communicates the primary action and the disposition of the input in just two short sentences.

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 description is severely under-specified for the actual context. It does not state what the tool returns, whether the query parameter is required, how to handle multiple provided parameters, or what edge cases exist. With no output schema and nine optional parameters, an agent cannot reliably know the full contract.

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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including explicit 'discarded' notes, so the tool description adds little additional meaning. The schema descriptions are somewhat inconsistent with the stated single-purpose tool, but they do clarify that most parameters are ignored.

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 tool counts characters in a search query and that the query is discarded afterward. The core purpose is identifiable, though the input schema includes many unrelated optional parameters that create some ambiguity about what exactly is being measured.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is inferable from the name and description, but the description does not mention conditions, edge cases, or how it differs from sibling tools like validation or shape-checking tools.

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