get_unread_notification_count

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

The description does not contradict the 'readOnlyHint' annotation. It adds the requirement for an API key, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as that the count is a single number, or that no side effects occur. The annotation already signals read-only behavior, so this is partially covered.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the requirement.

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 the tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively complete but lacks details on the return value (e.g., the count as an integer) and the fact that it's a read operation. The requirement for an API key is added, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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, so the parameter schema is fully covered. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('count of unread notifications'), and the user ('authenticated user'). It is specific and easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_notifications', which might list all notifications including counts.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires IWMM_API_KEY'), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_notifications'. There is no mention of use cases or exclusions.

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