ads_client_profile_unread_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does much of it: read-only, latest incoming message only, no full history, no mark-as-read, no send. That is exactly the disclosure an agent needs before acting. It doesn't cover auth/permission requirements, per-chat cost, or what a returned record contains, so it stops short of a 5.

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 with the capability statement, then what it does not do, then the escalation path — a sensible ordering with little waste. Three sentences is reasonable, though the npm script reference is operational advice that could read as clutter in a tool description.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must describe returns — it does, at the level of 'latest incoming message only'. For a one-parameter, read-only snapshot tool that is close to sufficient; the shape of the returned fields and any pagination/truncation behavior are the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter already documents its default of 50 and maximum of 100. The description adds no extra meaning about how limit interacts with the 'latest message only' semantics, so the baseline 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('fast read-only snapshot of unread one-to-one human Telegram chats') and scopes it to human 1:1 chats, which implicitly separates it from the channel, group, and mark-read siblings. It never names an alternative tool outright, so the differentiation stays inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear triggering context ('before drafting a reply') and a fallback path when a person has multiple messages (run the local full-history sync script and review every returned message). What's missing is guidance relative to the sibling tools — e.g., when to pair this with ads_telegram_chat_mark_read or whether to prefer ads_client_profile_channel_review for channel traffic.

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