get_telegram_channel_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the use of Telethon (MTProto) and required credentials, and states the return format (dict with fields). However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or side effects. Given no annotations, the description provides moderate transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a line for purpose, then technology, then Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriate in 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?

Given the simple tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: input formats, output structure, and implementation detail. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema only defines 'channel' as a string. The description adds significant meaning: it accepts @username, chat_id, or invite link. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and is very helpful for an agent.

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 states 'Получить информацию о Telegram канале' (Get info about a Telegram channel), and specifies the method (Telethon/MTProto). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_telegram_channel' by focusing on information retrieval for a specific channel.

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 mentions prerequisites (TELEGRAM_API_ID and TELEGRAM_API_HASH) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for getting details of a known channel but lacks when-not-to-use information.

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