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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful workflow fact that results are channel slugs feeding get_channels/get_channel_posts, but says nothing about result limits or matching behavior beyond what the schema shows.

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 sentences, no filler, purpose and filter axes front-loaded followed by the output/handoff note. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety; the description supplies the filter scope and downstream usage. It is largely complete, only missing any note on result limits or ordering behavior that an agent might want.

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 86%, so the schema already documents query, verified, languages, categories, activity and sort in detail. The description merely restates the filter axes at a high level without adding semantics such as matching rules or defaults, which meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 (search) and resource (tracked Telegram channels in Statiko's catalog) plus the dimension it searches on (name) and what it filters by. It also names the consumer tools (get_channels, get_channel_posts), which distinguishes it from those fetch-by-slug siblings.

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?

Clear about the search-and-filter context and points at the downstream tools that consume the returned slugs, giving the agent a workflow. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., use get_similar_channels or get_channel_timeline instead), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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