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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the search behavior ('Full-text search...'), supported type filters, language selection, and a 1-25 result limit, which are useful operational details. However, it does not mention whether the search is read-only, case-insensitive, or subject to auth/rate limits, leaving the safety profile implicit.

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 sentence followed by a compact bullet list, one line per parameter. It front-loads the tool's purpose and avoids redundant prose. Every line 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?

All four parameters, including defaults and allowed values, are fully specified, and an output schema exists to define return values. The only substantive gaps are the absence of usage alternatives and behavioral caveats (e.g., whether results are limited to public resources). For a straightforward search tool, this is largely complete.

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 Args block is the only source of parameter semantics. It explains query (topic/name/keyword), type (enumerates channels|bots|apps|groups|stickers), lang (enumerates languages and default), and limit (range and default). This fully compensates for the bare input 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across the TGBoard catalog of Telegram resources.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as get_telegram_resource, list_telegram_categories, and top_telegram_resources, which all imply different operations. No ambiguity remains about what action the tool performs.

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?

No sentence addresses when to use search_telegram versus get_telegram_resource, list_telegram_categories, or top_telegram_resources. The purpose statement implies a search scenario, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent must infer selection criteria from the tool's name alone.

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