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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds return semantics ('Returns the total number') and the intended use, which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not discuss what happens when workspaceId is omitted or invalid, but for a simple count operation this is a minor gap.

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 tight sentences: purpose, return value/use case, and routing to the sibling tool. No filler; the essential information is front-loaded.

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 simple count operation with strong annotations and a single self-explanatory parameter, the description covers the return value and points to the list alternative. The only notable omission is workspaceId behavior (optionality/default), which prevents a perfect score.

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 0% and the description does not explain the workspaceId parameter beyond repeating that the count is 'for a workspace.' It does not clarify whether workspaceId is required, what format it should take, or what happens if it is omitted. The property name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Count unread notifications for a workspace') and states the exact return value ('total number of unread notifications'). It also explicitly contrasts with campaignstack_list_notifications, so the agent can distinguish count from list operations.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('useful for badge counts') and an explicit alternative: when you need to see the actual notifications, use campaignstack_list_notifications. This tells the agent when to choose this tool and when to route elsewhere.

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