get_unread_notification_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., scope, performance). It does not contradict annotations.

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, short sentence (8 words) that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word is necessary.

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 and existing annotations/output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks context on scope (e.g., user-specific or workspace-wide) and does not clarify what 'unread notifications' refers to. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no params to describe). The description is not required to add param info; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 'Get the count of unread notifications' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('count of unread notifications'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_notification' (single) and 'list_notifications' (list). It 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?

The description implies a summary use case but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., 'list_notifications' for details). However, the context of count versus list is clear, so it earns a high score.

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