get_unread_notification_count

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

The description alerts that the tool requires an API key, but does not disclose other behavioral characteristics such as rate limits, error handling, or response format. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it is adequate but could be more informative.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose and essential requirement. Every word adds value, with no extraneous content.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It says 'get the count' but does not specify the return format (e.g., integer, JSON object). It also lacks context on error conditions or performance implications, making it minimally complete.

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 input schema has no parameters, and the description does not add parameter information (none needed). Per guidelines, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description implies authentication via API key, but that is not a parameter.

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 states the tool's action ('Get'), resource ('count of unread notifications'), and scope ('for the authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notifications (which returns details) and mark_notification_read (which modifies state).

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 explicitly mentions a prerequisite ('Requires IWMM_API_KEY'), which guides the agent on authentication. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when a count suffices instead of a list) or when not to use it.

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