Limzo Telegram Group Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful scope context: network-wide coverage, 7-day/all-time windows, durable lifetime totals, and top groups. It does not contradict annotations. Since the output schema exists, the lack of return format description is acceptable.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence listing key outputs, followed by one concise sentence for guidance. No wasted words; every clause adds information.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params) and has an output schema. The description thoroughly covers the returned data (metrics, timeframes, totals, top groups) and provides usage context. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). No parameter explanation is needed. The description adds meaning about what data is returned, which is beyond the empty 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 states a specific verb ('Call this for network-wide numbers') and clearly resources ('all public Telegram groups tracked by Limzo'), with an enumerated list of metrics. It is distinct from siblings: 'For finding a specific group, prefer list_groups' explicitly differentiates it.

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 provides an explicit alternative: 'For finding a specific group, prefer list_groups.' This gives clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names the sibling tool.

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

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses important behavioral details: 30d/all silently fall back to 7d for free groups, range.key should be checked, verbatim member messages are never included, and private groups have member identities, description, and member_count withheld. This gives the agent realistic expectations about output and limitations.

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?

Every sentence carries selection, parameter, behavior, or privacy information. The trigger is front-loaded, followed by slug, return contents, range caveat, and privacy constraints. The output enumeration is dense but useful and each clause earns its place.

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?

The definition covers selection, parameter semantics, return shape, paid-plan fallback, and privacy handling, which is more than enough for reliable invocation. It does not mention error behavior for invalid or nonexistent slugs, but the detailed schema and output description make that a minor omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents slug and range. The description adds value by explaining the slug URL pattern and, more importantly, by telling the agent to verify range.key because wider ranges may silently fall back. That operational guidance goes 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 opens with 'Call this when the user asks about the activity, health, leaderboard, mood, or trends of a specific Telegram group tracked by Limzo', naming the exact resource and scope. It is clearly distinguishable from get_global_stats and list_groups because it emphasizes a single Telegram group and its stats.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions ('Call this when...') and a precise scope, so an agent knows when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state when to choose them, but the 'specific Telegram group' scoping is strong enough to avoid obvious confusion.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds rich behavioral context: the directory only lists public groups with t.me handles, groups without handles may still have /s/ pages, language filtering uses 'meaningful share of what members write', and total_matches indicates when more results matched than were returned. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is long but every sentence carries useful information. It is front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then key scope constraints, then return-row details. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return values, but it still summarizes the row contents and total_matches behavior. It covers use cases, filter semantics, the public-only boundary, and interaction with a sibling tool, making it complete for an agent to select and call 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what 'meaningful share' means for lang, clarifying that query matches title/username/slug/description, and noting that omitting both query and lang lists top groups by Limzo Score. It does not address the limit parameter, but the schema already fully covers it.

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: discover Telegram groups tracked by Limzo. It enumerates concrete use cases (browse directory, filter by language, find a slug) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_group_stats by positioning the tool as the way to obtain the slug for that tool.

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 gives clear usage context: call this to browse, filter, or find slugs, and explains the public-only scope. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention get_global_stats as an alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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