Get Unread Counts

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: 'one request per course' (a cost/latency signal an agent should plan around) and the fact that zero-unread courses are omitted from the result. It does not, however, discuss auth requirements or the shape/ordering of the per-course result.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the request-cost and default-filtering details. Every sentence carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile, so the remaining burden is the default behavior and cost, both of which are covered. The main residual gap is the absence of any routing hint relative to the many sibling listing tools.

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 0%, so the single include_inactive parameter is undocumented in the schema; the description partially compensates by stating 'By default only active courses are counted,' which lets the agent infer that overriding the default includes inactive courses. It never names the parameter or states the explicit value needed, so compensation is only partial.

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 (count) and resource (posts with unread content, per course), which clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_posts or list_posts. However, it never names or contrasts itself with any sibling, so the agent must infer the distinction from the verb alone rather than being routed explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose ('count unread content in each course' tells you to reach for this when you want an unread overview), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., use get_posts for the actual unread posts rather than counts).

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