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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, it discloses the important frozen-snapshot behavior, empty DRAFT results, and recipient status lifecycle. It does not clarify identifier validation or precedence when both campaign identifiers are supplied.

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 compact sentences front-load the resource and its snapshot semantics, then provide invocation-specific identifier and filtering guidance. There is no filler or repetition of the annotations.

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?

The definition supplies enough behavioral and parameter context for most correct calls, which is especially valuable because there is no output schema. It could be more complete by stating whether one campaign identifier is required, how conflicts are handled, and what pagination or response envelope to expect.

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?

Despite zero schema description coverage, the description explains that campaign_id corresponds to tg_campaign_id, offers campaign_uuid as an alternative, and defines status as a narrowing filter with its allowed values. The remaining page and per_page parameters are conventional pagination controls with defaults already present in the schema.

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 identifies the exact resource—recipient rows for a Telegram campaign—and clarifies that there is one row per person. The snapshot and DRAFT details further distinguish it from campaign metadata tools such as get_tg_campaign and list_tg_campaigns.

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?

It provides useful selection context by explaining that recipients are frozen when the campaign starts and that a DRAFT returns empty results. It does not explicitly direct agents to preview_tg_campaign_audience for draft audiences or state other when-not-to-use cases.

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