vibo_get_notifications_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only the 'unread' scope, which the title ('Unread notification count') also conveys, and says nothing about refresh cadence, caching, or authentication requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a trivial count operation, though it offers no additional structure because there is nothing more to say.

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 no-parameter read that returns a single count, the description covers what an agent needs: what is counted (unread notifications) and implicitly that a numeric value is returned. No output schema exists, but the return value is simple enough to be self-evident.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (count of unread notifications), and the 'unread' qualifier cleanly separates it from vibo_list_notifications. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the scope 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 use this versus vibo_list_notifications or vibo_mark_notifications_read, nor any mention of prerequisites or edge cases (e.g. zero-count behavior). Usage is only implied by the name and description.

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