Get Unread Counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by explaining the mode parameter (count returns capped numbers, flag returns booleans) and the deployment requirement (Mongo archiving). This goes beyond the structured annotations and informs the agent of operational constraints.

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 concise, two sentences, front-loading the core purpose before detailing mode behavior and requirements. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most critical aspects: the operation's nature, mode behavior, and prerequisites. It omits details on cap and concurrency, but those are optional and less critical. The description is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only 40%, leaving cap, mode, and concurrency undocumented in the schema. The description clarifies the mode parameter's effect and the appId requirement, but does not explain cap or concurrency semantics. It partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves gaps.

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 function: batch per-room unread message counts for a set of users, including the HTTP endpoint. It is specific about the resource and action, and distinct enough from siblings like ethora-messages-context-v2, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against them.

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 provides clear prerequisites: requires Mongo message archiving enabled, and requires either a selected app via ethora-app-select or an explicit appId. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the conditions given are actionable.

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