wb_questions_count

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only states the resource being counted. It does not disclose that the operation is read-only, what scope is implied, what response shape to expect, or whether any default period or aggregation applies.

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 short sentence is appropriately sized for a parameterless count tool, and the key term 'unanswered questions' is front-loaded. The Russian parenthetical is a minor redundancy but does not add meaningful noise.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to state that the result is a numeric count, what question scope is used, or how this differs from wb_questions_count_period, leaving an agent uncertain about semantics and return value.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level documentation burden. The description is not required to explain fields, but it could have clarified the implicit scope of the count.

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 a specific resource (questions) and scope (unanswered) and clearly signals a count operation. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling wb_questions_count_period, which likely provides a period-scoped count.

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 description provides no guidance on when to call this tool instead of alternatives such as wb_questions_count_period, wb_questions_list, or wb_feedbacks_count. There are no context cues, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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