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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: substring and case-insensitive matching across any alphabet, so partial names work. It does not discuss ambiguity when multiple candidates match, but it adds real operational context 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?

Two sentences plus a short imperative, front-loaded with the core purpose and matching semantics. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states the return value (chat_id) and that it feeds into telegram_get_messages. It is slightly incomplete about what happens with multiple matches given the limit parameter, but otherwise sufficient for a simple lookup 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning by clarifying that partial/substring names are acceptable and that any of the identifier forms can be used interchangeably. It says nothing extra about the `limit` parameter, but the schema documents that fully.

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 precise verb+resource (resolve a person to their chat_id) and enumerates the accepted identifier forms (first name, last name, @username, numeric id). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like telegram_list_chats, which enumerate chats rather than resolve a person.

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?

Gives explicit ordering guidance: 'Call this before telegram_get_messages,' which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. It does not name a when-not condition or an alternative resolver, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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