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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side effects. The description adds useful behavioral context such as the return format (message list and metadata dict) and the caveat that global search ignores include_total_count, which goes beyond schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and stays concise at five sentences. It includes a documentation link and essential behavior notes, though one sentence duplicates schema information (include_total_count), making it slightly less efficient than ideal.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 1 required), the description covers the global scope, query syntax, filters, return value, and a special behavior. The output schema handles return details, and the documentation link provides further depth, making it adequately complete for selection and invocation.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the comma-separated query semantics and filter types but adds minimal new parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states it searches all Telegram chats globally, explicitly contrasting with per-chat search ('not scoped to one chat'). It uses a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_messages.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool ('Search all Telegram chats at once'), implying global vs per-chat use cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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