wb_feedbacks_pins_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one meaningful behavioral fact: the cap of 3 per nmID. However, it does not clarify whether that cap is a product rule, a response limit, or how the count is aggregated, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the resource ('pinned feedback count') and the important constraint ('limit 3 per nmID') in a single phrase. No filler or redundant explanation is present.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema count tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the most notable constraint. It does not mention response format or authentication, but those are unlikely to prevent correct invocation of a parameterless count endpoint. The main remaining gap is the ambiguity around the 'limit 3 per nmID' rule.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, consistent with the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states the tool provides a count of pinned feedbacks and adds the key constraint 'limit 3 per nmID.' The 'pinned' qualifier clearly separates it from siblings like wb_feedbacks_count (general count) and wb_feedbacks_pins_set/delete (mutations). It is slightly elliptical because it is a noun phrase rather than a full verb phrase, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: use this when the agent needs the number of pinned feedbacks rather than a list or a mutation. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over wb_feedbacks_count or wb_feedbacks_pins, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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