Get Conversation Unread Count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and mutability. The description adds the 'authenticated user' scope, which is useful, but does not elaborate on response shape or any other behavioral details. This matches the calibration example for get_calls.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations, the description suffices. It clearly states what is counted and for whom. It does not specify the output format, but a count implicitly returns a numeric value; however, mentioning this would have been slightly more 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds context by specifying the count is for the authenticated user, which clarifies the implicit scope. No further parameter explanation is 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 specific verb and resource: 'Get the number of unread conversations for the authenticated user.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_conversations (which retrieves a list) and get_conversation (a single item) by focusing on a 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 purpose itself makes the usage clear: use this when you only need the unread count rather than the full list. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would be a 5.

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