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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Detailed card,' which implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only, idempotency, error handling for missing slugs, or any rate-limit/auth requirements. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 three short lines: a main sentence followed by an args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, one optional with default) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. The only omission is behavioral context (errors, side effects), which is minor for a read-only lookup but would be improved with a note. Overall it's sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does. It defines slug as 'the resource slug from a TGBoard URL or a search result' and lang with allowed values ('en | ru | it | es | fr | ar') and default (en). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Detailed card of one catalog resource by its TGBoard slug' clearly states the verb (get detailed card) and resource (catalog resource). It differentiates from siblings like list_telegram_categories, search_telegram, and top_telegram_resources by emphasizing a single item lookup. This is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it for individual resource details.

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 when to use the tool: when the agent has a specific TGBoard slug, either from a URL or a previous search result (stated in the slug arg). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the single-resource purpose and slug arg make the context clear. A stronger version would mention 'use search_telegram first if you don't have a slug,' but this is adequate.

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