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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully discloses the most important trait: nothing is sent. It also indicates what the tool shows the user, but does not mention validation behavior, permissions, or error handling.

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 very compact and front-loaded: it states what is shown, confirms no send occurs, and gives the mandatory workflow instruction. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 low-complexity preview tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key safety behavior and intended workflow. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify the `chat_id` format or explicitly name the actual send tool.

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 only 33%, with only `id` documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for `chat_id` and `message` by referring to the recipient and exact text, but it does not explain the `chat_id` format or compensate fully for the undocumented parameters.

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 effect: it shows the recipient and exact text of an operator message, and explicitly says nothing is sent. This clearly distinguishes it from the actual send operation, though it does not name the sibling tool `send_telegram_message`.

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 a strong usage rule: "ALWAYS call first and show the user the text." This clearly tells the agent when to use it relative to sending, but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or describe when not to use this preview.

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