canvas_unread_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful domain clarification about Canvas Inbox vs email, but says nothing about the shape of the returned count or how pagination/raw interacts with a count call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the disambiguation and the alternative. No filler or repetition.

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 two-optional-parameter, fully annotated read-only count tool with complete schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. A brief note on what the count represents (all conversations vs a course scope) would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so both the raw flag and the page/bookmark parameter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail but doesn't need to; baseline for full schema coverage is 3, with slight credit for the scoping pointer to canvas_conversations.

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 and resource: reads the count of unread Canvas Inbox conversations. It further disambiguates the domain ("This is Canvas messaging, not email"), which matters in a tool list where email-like tools could confuse an agent.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the sibling: use canvas_conversations with scope unread to actually read the messages, keeping this tool for the count. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., per-course unread counts), but the alternative is named.

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