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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals the authentication prerequisite (Proof account, /mcp → Authenticate), the need to call the tool again after auth, and the special rendering behavior of qr_text. It could add token lifecycle details (e.g., expiration) but already covers the most critical behavioral traits.

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 longer than strictly necessary but is well-structured into purpose, agent usage, and access prerequisites. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields before deeper instructions.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description effectively covers the full workflow: what it returns, how to use the returns with siblings, the authentication requirement, and the downstream use of the discovered chat_id. It even clarifies the relationship to start_login. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about the return values and how they should be consumed, but there are no parameters to clarify. It does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters since none exist.

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 clear verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('Telegram chat ID discovery token'), and lists the exact return fields (deep_link, qr_code, qr_text). It also distinguishes itself from related siblings by explicitly referencing render_auth_link, poll_chat_id_discovery, and start_login.

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?

Provides explicit agent usage instructions: pass deep_link to render_auth_link, never hand qr_text to a link renderer, print qr_text in a fenced block only for a terminal, and then poll poll_chat_id_discovery. Also states start_login does NOT open this tool, clarifying when not to use it.

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