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

Annotations declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the send is queued, so the response only reports how many were enqueued, not whether delivery succeeded. That asynchronous return semantics is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express. It stops just short of describing partial-failure handling or rate limits.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences: purpose, precondition, modes, and return semantics — front-loaded with no filler. Every sentence introduces a distinct, actionable fact.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains the return shape (enqueued count, not delivery outcome) and how to confirm success. Annotations carry the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing; it only lacks detail on partial failures or retry limits.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the log_id-vs-batch behavior and the telegram/max enum. The description restates the log_id/batch distinction without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('resend to messenger what failed to send') and immediately frames it against the sibling read tool get_integration_logs and the retry pattern. An agent can distinguish it from resend_quiz_webhook_log and get_integration_logs without opening a schema.

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?

States the exact precondition for use ('when the cause of failure is fixed: bot returned to a group, token reissued') and gives the two operating modes: one record by log_id or all failures for a period. It also routes the agent to get_integration_logs to verify delivery.

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