Get Unread Counters

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does add one useful fact — the counts are scoped to "the current user". It does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what "with new messages" means concretely (new since last read vs. unread), leaving meaningful ambiguity for a state-reporting tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and the parenthetical quantifying the return values. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter read, so not much is required, and the description covers purpose and the two counter types. With no output schema, however, it leaves the actual response shape unresolved — it is unclear whether the result is one number, two named fields, or a breakdown per chat type.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning the description needs to add. Nothing is missing because there is nothing to document.

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 specific verb and resource ("Get the number of unread chats") and clarifies that two figures are returned: a total and a count with new messages. It never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction from list_chats or mark_chat_message_read rather than being told.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can guess this is the lightweight count call to use instead of list_chats when only a number is needed, but the description never says so or sets any condition. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative pointers.

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