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

Annotations already establish read-only safety; the description adds meaningful traits: the scope is this session's watches and results are grouped per account with last-checked/next-check timestamps. It does not mention empty-state behavior or account-connection prerequisites, so it falls short of 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the core output, with a useful parenthetical sibling reference. Slightly dense but no wasted sentence.

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?

Output schema covers return shape and annotations cover safety; the description supplies session-scope and per-account scheduling context. Minor gaps: how empty/no-account cases appear and whether a connected account is required.

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 sole optional account parameter is fully documented in the schema (label/id from telegram_list_accounts, omit for default). The description only reinforces the 'per account' framing, adding little beyond schema coverage.

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 resource and output: which Telegram chats are being watched, plus per-account last-checked and next-check times. It distinguishes itself from telegram_watch_chats by naming that sibling and framing this as the status view, though the contrast is parenthetical rather than explicit.

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?

Implies usage when you need to inspect active watches, but never says when to prefer it over telegram_list_chats or telegram_watch_chats, nor any exclusions or preconditions. Routing is left to inference.

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