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

Adds value beyond annotations (which only cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld): discloses ordering ('ascending date-time, oldest first'), that 'limit selects the newest N', the return shape ('message list and metadata dict'), and the ignored-parameter caveat. Notably omits permission or rate-limit context, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and packs scope, filters, ordering, and return shape into compact sentences. Slightly dense but every clause carries information; the doc link is the only marginal element.

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 an 8-parameter global search with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers scope, ordering, limit semantics, and the count caveat. Missing only explicit sibling routing ('use X instead when...'), which is a minor gap.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema; the description only restates query/media filters and the include_total_count caveat. Per the baseline rule, 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search all Telegram chats at once') and explicitly disambiguates scope with '(not scoped to one chat)', distinguishing it from chat-scoped siblings like get_messages and find_chats.

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?

Implies global scope usage and warns 'Global search ignores include_total_count', but never names an alternative sibling (e.g., when to use get_messages or find_chats instead) or states exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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