Read message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: it promises 'full content and file details' rather than previews, and notes that an album message returns its other items as well. That album-expansion note is the kind of behavioral detail an agent cannot get from annotations, and there is no output schema to supply it elsewhere.

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, with the return-content statement front-loaded and the invocation guidance second – a sensible order. Nothing is redundant. The first sentence is a noun fragment rather than a verb phrase, which costs a little clarity but not length.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what comes back, the album edge case, and both addressing forms. It leaves unspecified what happens if the message is not found or deleted, and does not describe the shape of album results, but those are minor against a low-complexity read operation.

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 only 50% – 'link' and 'message_id' have no schema description – so the description has to compensate, and it does: it demonstrates the link format (https://t.me/name/123) and clarifies the two mutually substitutable addressing modes (link OR chat + message_id). That adds real meaning beyond the raw schema, though it says nothing about message_id's relationship to a resolved chat or how album item ids behave.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'Full content and file details of one message (albums include their other items).' That singles out a single-message read rather than a bulk fetch like the sibling tg_get_messages. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating in so many words.

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 second sentence tells the agent how to invoke the tool ('Pass link ... or chat + message_id'), which implicitly defines when to use it: when a single message is known by link or id. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no pointer to tg_get_messages or tg_search_messages for the other case. Adequate but with clear gaps in routing guidance.

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