get_unread_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe return format, error behavior, or scope (e.g., which user/account's notifications). The verb 'get' implies read-only, but that is not enough for transparency.

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 sentence of 7 words, perfectly front-loaded and free of filler. Every word contributes meaningful information.

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 simple count tool, the description states the core function, but it is incomplete contextually. It does not specify the scope (e.g., across all accounts or a specific portfolio), nor does it mention that the return is a numeric value (though implied). Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail (e.g., 'returns a non-negative integer') would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Per the baseline rule for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. There is no parameter ambiguity to clarify.

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 'Get the count of unread notifications' clearly states the specific verb 'get' and resource 'count of unread notifications'. The word 'count' distinguishes it from sibling tool 'get_notifications', which likely returns the list itself. 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?

The description implies usage when a simple count is needed rather than the full notification list, but it does not explicitly state this or mention alternatives. There is no 'use this when' or 'prefer get_notifications for details' guidance, so it is only implicitly conveyed.

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