Word Counter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by disclosing the computed metrics and that HTML input is tolerated, but says nothing about return shape or how reading/speaking time is derived.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the capability list and ending with the input-format caveat. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 single-input, side-effect-free utility with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — the agent knows what it computes and what input is accepted. Only the precise output details (units, time-estimate assumptions) are left implicit, which is minor here.

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' property is a bare string, so the description carries the burden — and it does add real meaning by stating the input 'Accepts text or HTML', which the schema does not convey. That is a meaningful clarification for the only parameter.

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 concrete verb (count) plus the exact resources measured (words, characters, sentences, paragraphs) and additional outputs (reading/speaking time), which makes it distinguishable from siblings like keyword_density or heading_structure_analyzer. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any named sibling, so it lands at clear-but-not-routing.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus keyword_density or heading_structure_analyzer, nor states any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement, which is the 'no guidance' band.

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