wb_feedbacks_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only counting operation, but does not disclose details like whether archived, pinned, or all-shop feedbacks are included, or what exact value is returned. This is minimally adequate for a simple no-parameter count.

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 a single compact phrase with no filler. It front-loads the core meaning and includes a Russian translation for clarity without adding unnecessary length.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema count tool, the description is nearly complete: it says what is being counted and the scope. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'unanswered' means and what the response looks like, but the name and wording make the return value obvious.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.

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 clearly states the resource (feedbacks) and the operation (count), and narrows the scope to unanswered feedbacks. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like wb_feedbacks_count_period or wb_feedbacks_list, but the meaning is sufficiently specific.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wb_feedbacks_count_period, wb_feedbacks_list, or wb_questions_count. The intended use is only implied by the name and description.

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