Get Unread Notification Count

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior Mend. The description adds a clear return contract ('JSON with count (number)'), which is valuable because no output schema exists. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the action, and every word adds value. The return format note is useful and there is no fluff.

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?

With zero parameters, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an explicit return description, this is nearly complete for such a simple endpoint. It could add a sentence about what 'unread' means or whether the count is scoped to the authenticated user, but that is a minor 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty input schema is consistent with the tool's simple purpose.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('count of unread notifications'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like list_notifications and get_notification. It could earn a 5 if it explicitly contrasted with those sibling tools, but the purpose is still obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It doesn't mention that list_notifications should be used when actual notifications are needed, or that this is a lightweight count/check endpoint. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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