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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world call, and the description layers substantial extra behavior on top: permission scope, one-hour expiry window, 60-second timeout semantics, and restart/offline invalidation. It stops short of describing the shape or possible values of the returned status/result, which is the one behavioral gap left.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct operational information — identity, permission, cadence, expiry/timeout, and error handling — with the invocation essentials front-loaded. No filler and nothing restated from the annotations.

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 read-only polling tool with no output schema and only one required parameter, the description covers permissions, polling cadence, expiry, timeout, and runtime-restart invalidation, which is nearly everything needed to call it correctly. The missing piece is a hint at what the result payload contains or which status values to expect, which matters more given there is no output schema.

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 only 33% (only applicationId is documented), so the description must compensate, and it does for the key constraint: both applicationId and botId must match the values used at submission. It does not say where requestId comes from (presumably the execute_telegram_operation response) or address the schema's MCP_APPLICATION_REQUIRED path for personal keys, so it compensates only partially.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read a Telegram operation status and result') and pins the identity keys (requestId plus the applicationId/botId used for submission). This implicitly separates it from execute_telegram_operation (the submitter) and list_telegram_operations (the enumerator) without the agent needing either schema.

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 explicit operational routing: poll every two seconds, requires manage_broadcasts, results expire an hour after last update, and timed_out means no result within 60s and requires a fresh request if the runtime was offline or restarted. It also states the when-not path for throttling errors, directing the caller to respect error.retryAfterSeconds before submitting another operation.

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