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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds practical behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the fields returned (number, name, address, active status) and explains the downstream purpose of the bot number. Pagination or exact response formatting is not mentioned, but that is a minor gap for a zero-parameter read-only list.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the payload returned, the second explains why the bot number matters. The information is front-loaded and there is no filler, repetition, or restatement of schema details.

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?

For a simple read-only list with no parameters, the description covers the core return values and gives practical context for using the data. It does not specify the exact JSON response shape or how the 'works' status is encoded, but with no output schema present, this is a minor omission rather than a blocking 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so there is no semantic ambiguity to resolve. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and the baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool. The mention of the bot number's purpose adds useful context to one of the returned fields, not to parameters.

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 resource clearly — Telegram bots of the school — and enumerates the returned attributes: number, name, address, and whether it works. Although there is no explicit verb in the description, the tool name 'list_bots' and the phrase 'Боты школы в Telegram' make the operation unambiguous. It does not risk confusion with any sibling tool.

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 sentence 'Номер бота нужен, чтобы читать его воронки и собирать новые' explicitly motivates the data returned by this tool and places it in a workflow before funnel read/creation operations. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling exposes bot data, so the contextual guidance is sufficient.

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