Count words, sentences and pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds useful transparency beyond that: it warns the page count is an estimate from typical words-per-page and may differ slightly from a word processor, and it discloses the reading-time heuristic (238 wpm). It still doesn't mention output format or limits on text size.

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 front-loaded with the primary function, then lists inputs and defaults, then caveats and an example. It is slightly long and could trim the redundant defaults already in the schema, but every part remains informative.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it helpfully notes the reading-time and page-estimate outputs. Inputs, defaults, caveats, and an example are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 75%, and the description compensates by enumerating font choices (times new roman, arial, calibri, georgia, courier new, verdana) that the schema only describes generically as a string, and by restating defaults for font_size and spacing. It adds real semantic value over the schema, though it doesn't describe constraints like the 6-72 point range.

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 specific verbs and resources: counts words, characters, sentences, paragraphs, and estimates page count and reading time. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like readability_scores and word_frequency, but it does not explicitly separate itself from check_word_limit, which also deals with word counts.

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?

It provides a concrete example invocation ('Count the words in this essay and estimate the pages in Times New Roman 12 double spaced') and explains the default configuration clearly. However, it never states when to prefer this over check_word_limit or other siblings, so no exclusions are given.

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