notifications_unread_count

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses it's lightweight/suitable for polling, which implicitly signals read-only behavior. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., does it return just a number, or an object with total/filtered counts?), auth requirements, or any rate-limiting considerations for polling frequency.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose, the second adds the polling use-case context. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only count endpoint, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of return format disclosure (number vs object), but this is a simple tool and the 'get count' framing reasonably implies a numeric response. No output schema exists, so a note on return type would improve completeness slightly.

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 are 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there's nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero params is appropriate since there's no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Get the count of unread notifications') and specifies the subject scope ('for the authenticated user'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notifications_list (which lists notifications) and notifications_mark_read, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives. Clear enough but not maximal differentiation.

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 states this is a 'lightweight endpoint' and is 'suitable for polling to update notification badges', providing clear context for when to use it. It implies this is efficient for repeated calls. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools like notifications_list for full details.

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