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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral trait: error obfuscation (same error for both failure cases). However, it omits other details like success behavior, response format, or any side effects. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no fluff or repetition. Efficient and directly to the point.

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 send operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential prerequisite (pairing) and a critical edge case (error obfuscation). It doesn't mention success return values, but that's likely obvious. Slightly incomplete on error handling details (e.g., rate limits, message size), but overall sufficient for an agent to use 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 67%, with chat_id and owner_key well described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond the pairing mention, which is already in chat_id's schema description. It doesn't clarify the 'text' parameter, but that's self-evident. Thus it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 (send text message), the resource (Telegram chat_id), and the condition (must be paired). It also implicitly distinguishes from the sibling telegram_pair_code by focusing on sending after pairing. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage after pairing, mentioning the pairing code tool. It also warns that sending to unpaired or foreign chat_ids is rejected, effectively saying 'do not use this until paired'. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives beyond the pairing requirement, but for this tool the main alternative is telegram_pair_code, which is implicitly referenced.

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