Unread message counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: counts are produced 'without opening messages', i.e., no read-state side effects, and the results are independent of the notification tool. It doesn't address account-type eligibility implied by 'Modern accounts'.

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?

Two short sentences, with the capability and its folder scope stated first and the sibling disambiguation second. Nothing is redundant with the tool name.

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 no explanation, and the single parameter is fully specified in the schema. The only unresolved gap is the unexplained 'Modern accounts' qualifier, which leaves the agent unsure which accounts this applies to.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself pointing to list_accounts for the alias. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('get unread message counts') and adds scope the name omits: current and archive folders. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_new_notifications, so an agent can choose between the two without reading either 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?

'Independent of get_new_notifications' tells the agent these two tools do not overlap and should not be chained or substituted for one another. What is missing is an explicit directive on when to call this one (e.g., for inbox badge counts) versus get_messages.

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