Число непрочитанных push-уведомлений

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

The description merely restates the title and adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already convey. It does not mention aggregation scope, whether the count reflects only a current session, how fresh the value is, or any side effects, though annotations do signal read-only and idempotent behavior.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence and is easy to scan. It is very concise, though it largely duplicates the title and therefore adds little independent informational value.

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 zero parameters, a dedicated output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple read-only count tool. The main missing piece is usage guidance around when this count is relevant, but that is already reflected in the lower usage-guidelines score.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no missing parameter documentation for the description to compensate for. The baseline for parameter-free tools applies, and the description adds nothing harmful or confusing about inputs.

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 communicates that the tool returns the number of unread push notifications, which is a specific resource and lightweight action even without an explicit verb like 'get' or 'count'. It distinguishes this tool from related 'unread' tools at least by the 'push' scope, though it does not mention any alternative.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as messenger_unread or other count-like tools. There is no mention of intended workflow position, prerequisites, or situations where this tool should be avoided in favor of another.

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