Get unread counts

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the tool aggregates two types of unread items into a single count and is designed as a quick triage step, not a detailed listing.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains when and how to use it in relation to sibling tools.

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 tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It also provides the essential routing guidance to the relevant sibling tools, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the only parameter, id_organization. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning but also does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 and resource: it retrieves counts of waiting comments and private messages in one call. It also distinguishes itself from siblings list_comments and list_conversations by framing the result as counts rather than the items themselves.

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 positions this as the 'what do I have today?' starting point and directs the agent to list_comments or list_conversations to see the actual items. This provides a clear workflow and names the appropriate alternatives without requiring inference.

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