band_whats_new

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results span all bands rather than one, and the payload is counts only, with detail requiring a follow-up call. It doesn't clarify the lookback window for 'new' or whether counts are per-band or totaled, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first states the resource and the three count types, the second routes the agent to the right next tools. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by naming the three count categories. The only shortfall is that it never defines 'new' (time window) or whether the counts are aggregated or broken down by band, which matters for a cross-band overview tool.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and nothing in the text misleadingly implies arguments.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource framing: it surfaces counts of new feed posts, unread chat messages and news notifications across all bands. It also distinguishes itself from the drill-down siblings by ending with 'Follow up with band_list_posts or band_list_chats for the details,' so an agent knows this is the summary tier of the tool set.

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?

It is explicit about the sequencing: use this first to see what is waiting, then call band_list_posts or band_list_chats for detail. It doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites (for example, whether it needs authentication or works only for joined bands), so it falls just short of a full when/when-not guide.

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