get_unread_notification_count

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious environment context – that PLATO has person-to-person messaging disabled site-wide, so only notifications are counted – which prevents a wrong inference about what the number includes. It lacks only caching/staleness detail.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then the cheaper-than-alternative framing, then the caveat. Three compact clauses each doing work; the parenthetical is the only slightly heavy part but it carries the cost comparison.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the read-only profile. The description supplies the account scope and the notifications-only caveat, leaving little an agent needs; only freshness/staleness of the count is unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise that needs explanation and the description correctly does not invent any.

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?

Specific verb ('get') plus resource ('count of this account's unread notifications') with explicit scope to the current account. It also names the sibling it differs from (get_unread_messages), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to prefer this tool: a 'cheaper check' when content isn't needed, contrasted against get_unread_messages. That is a clear use/avoid pair rather than implied guidance.

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