get_notifications_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core behavior (returns a count, filters by unread status, scopes to a flat) but does not elaborate on authentication, error conditions, or return format. This is adequate but not rich, earning a 3.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the entire functionality without any extraneous words. Perfect conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential context: what is counted, for whom, and the filter. It does not explain return details, but 'count' implies the return type. For a tool of this complexity, it is fairly complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter flat_id ('Internal flat ID'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it simply recontextualizes the flat as the subject of the count. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, this scores a 3.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the count of unread notifications for a flat.' It uses a specific verb ('get'), a specific resource ('unread notifications'), and a clear scope ('a flat'). This distinguishes it from sibling count tools like get_approvals_count and get_booking_stats.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need the count of unread notifications for a flat. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage is unambiguous and self-evident from the description. No competing tool offers this specific functionality.

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