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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a useful behavioral quirk: global search ignores include_total_count, and it clarifies that success returns a message list and metadata dict, which supplements the output schema.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then concisely lists key features and a behavioral caveat, and ends with a documentation link. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague content.

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?

Given 8 parameters, a rich schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context including global scope and the include_total_count quirk. It could be more explicit about alternatives to scoped search, but no critical information is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all 8 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description restates comma-separated terms and optional filters but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the include_total_count caveat is already present in the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as performing a global search across all Telegram chats, explicitly noting it is not scoped to one chat. This verb-resource-scope combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_messages that are chat-specific.

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 description gives clear context that this is for searching across all chats at once, contrasting with scoped search. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for scoped searches or state when not to use this tool, leaving a small gap in guidance.

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