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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose the return format, what 'with stats' actually includes (readability? averages?), whether input length is bounded, or any edge-case behavior for empty/unicode text. 'With stats' is too vague to count as real disclosure.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the countable units, with no filler. Everything stated earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter computation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose. However, 'with stats' gestures at additional return values without specifying them, leaving the agent guessing what output to expect.

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 0% and the single 'text' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The parameter is trivially inferable as the text to analyze, so this is adequate but adds no meaning beyond the obvious.

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?

States a specific verb (count) and enumerates the resources (words, characters, sentences, paragraphs), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_readability or summarize_text. It is clear but doesn't explicitly name a sibling or scope boundary.

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 versus analyze_readability, analyze_sentiment, or proofread_text, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the listed metrics.

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