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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the token transits the chat, the owner can revoke via /revoke, and admin/owner role is required. It does not say whether an existing bot gets replaced or what the tool returns, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by operational detail. The @BotFather walkthrough is longer than strictly needed and reads as end-user UI copy rather than agent guidance, but no sentence is wasted.

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 and full parameter documentation, the description covers the gaps that matter for a mutation tool: role requirement, secret handling, and recovery path. It omits post-connection effects (webhook registration, whether an existing bot is overwritten), a minor gap.

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% and the pattern already enforces the token format, but the description adds real meaning: where the key comes from (@BotFather /newbot), what it looks like, and that project_id ties to a project the caller manages. This is above the baseline-3 case where schema already tells the whole story.

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 and resource — 'Connect the project to a Telegram bot' — and adds the outcome ('so clients can write to it there'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like dosai_get_telegram_status, dosai_test_bot, and dosai_update_bot_settings at a glance.

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?

Gives a prerequisite ('Requires admin or owner role') and explains the practical setup flow via @BotFather, but never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what state the project must be in beforehand (e.g., checking existing connection with dosai_get_telegram_status first). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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