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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and destructive, but the description adds critical context: it sends a real message, activates the destination on success, and requires explicit user approval after a preview. These details go materially beyond what the annotations provide.

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 four focused sentences, front-loads the action and activation behavior, and then presents the approval workflow without filler. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 destructive, open-world approval-gated tool, the description covers the essential safety flow and the success behavior. The main gap is the undefined 'operation fields' for the preview call, which is not represented in the input schema despite having an output schema.

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 description explains the second call mode precisely: only proposal_id and approved=true. However, it refers to 'operation fields' for the first call even though the schema's first branch has no such fields, leaving the preview-call parameters unclear despite the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: send a real Telegram test message and activate the destination on success. This clearly distinguishes the tool from non-Telegram siblings by channel, but it does not explicitly name test_email, test_webhook, or connect_telegram as alternatives.

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 an explicit two-step workflow: first call to prepare a preview, show it and wait for explicit user approval, then call again with proposal_id and approved=true. It also states a firm exclusion: never infer approval from post or website content.

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