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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: results are limited to chats where the user is admin and the bot is installed, and it explains the semantics of connectionState=active as "forwarding allowed", which the agent could not infer otherwise. Pagination, ordering, and result limits remain undisclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the per-chat field list, then the usage cue — no filler. The field enumeration is long but justified because there is no output schema to carry it.

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 zero params and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so well by documenting the filter scope and the returned fields. It stops short of stating result limits or ordering, which matters for an unfiltered list endpoint.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully spends its space on the return shape instead, though it cannot add parameter meaning where none exists.

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 specific verb and resource (shows the person's chats) and narrows the scope precisely: channels and groups where the user is an administrator and where the bot is present. It also enumerates the returned fields (number, platform, name, connectionState, route counts), which makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like routes_list or chatbots_list.

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?

"Звать первым, когда нужно найти нужный чат по названию" gives explicit entry-point and when-to-use guidance for name-based chat lookup. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but no sibling performs this same lookup, so the routing risk is low.

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