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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The word 'sample' usefully signals that results are a subset rather than the full corpus, but the description says nothing about the limit cap, the now/yesterday window, or ordering within the sample.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the 'what it does' clause precedes the rationale. Slightly terse given the undocumented parameters, but structurally sound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 4-parameter sampling tool with an enum parameter and half its schema undocumented, the description leaves the sampling window and limit semantics to be guessed.

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 description coverage is only 50%: lang and norm are documented in the schema, while limit and window (including the now/yesterday enum) have no descriptions anywhere. The tool description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 (sample) and resource (Telegram posts mentioning a trending topic) and adds the intent — reading what a story on the trending board is about. It is clearly distinct from get_trending_topics in effect, though it never names the sibling it complements.

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 purpose clause implies usage ('for reading what a story on the trending board is actually about'), which is enough to infer it follows get_trending_topics, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus get_channel_posts or search.

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