Avisos sin leer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about what counts as unread, whether the count is scoped to the caller, or whether it is cached/live. For a trivial zero-parameter read, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, appropriate for a trivial read tool. It is front-loaded with the one fact that matters, though it is terse to the point of omitting the tool's domain context.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by indicating the return is a quantity ("Cantidad"), which is exactly the one thing an agent needs to know about the response. Given zero parameters and full annotation coverage, only the missing scope/usage context keeps it below a 5.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the input level. No filtering options are implied or needed.

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 concrete resource and metric: the count of unread notifications. That is distinguishable in kind from list_notifications (which returns items) without opening the schema. It stops short of naming that sibling or the notification domain explicitly, but the purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_notifications or get_overview, both of which likely surface notification information. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of scope (per-user vs global unread). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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