word_count_with_exclusions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It explicitly declares "Read-only," states that unknown zone names are rejected, reports the total/included/excluded invariant, and notes that detected zone locations are returned for review.

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 compact yet information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds useful detail: allowed exclusions, return shape, invariant, tokenization parity, and read-only status.

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 read-only counting tool, the description covers the essential operational knowledge: what can be excluded, how totals relate, how tokenization behaves, and what is returned. The presence of an output schema further covers return structure, so little is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by enumerating the allowed exclude values and their rejection behavior. The `file_path` parameter is only indirectly referenced via "word_count's file mode," but its meaning is self-evident from the required parameter name.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource phrase, "Count words minus named zones," and lists the exact zones that can be excluded. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling `word_count` and explains the journal-specific purpose.

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 context is clear: this is the tool to use when a journal-style count excluding references, captions, footnotes, and other named zones is needed. It also references `word_count`'s file mode for tokenization parity, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer the plain `word_count` alternative.

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