Get Text Count

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly conveys a pure, side-effect-free computation via 'Calculate' and helpfully documents the returned fields, but never states that it is read-only, deterministic, or has no external effects. A useful but not complete behavioral picture.

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?

One sentence plus a clean three-item list, with the overall purpose front-loaded ahead of the detail. Every line earns its place and there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows what it gets back. It is nearly complete for a trivial deterministic tool; only the lack of any usage/permission context keeps it from a 5.

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 has no schema-level description. The phrase 'for the input text' signals what is measured but adds no constraints, format expectations, or size limits. Partial compensation for the coverage gap, not full.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('text metrics for the input text'), then enumerates the exact three metrics produced. There are no siblings to distinguish from, and the enumeration removes any ambiguity about scope.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives are given. Usage is trivially implied by the name and the listing of metrics, but nothing is stated explicitly. With no siblings, there is little to route against, so this lands at minimum-viable.

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