get_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. Since this is a read operation, a readOnlyHint annotation would be helpful, but its absence isn't the description's fault. The description notes it returns 'information', implying a read, but doesn't disclose details like what specific fields are returned or any auth requirements. No annotations to contradict, so baseline is maintained.

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?

One concise sentence that says exactly what's needed. Zero wasted words, fully front-loaded with the verb-resource pairing. Appropriate length for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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?

The tool has a simple single-parameter signature, full schema coverage, and an output schema (which presumably documents return values). For this level of complexity, the description is adequate. Complete guidance for a straightforward lookup. Could be slightly richer on what type of info is returned, but overall sufficient given the output schema exists.

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 100% and the single parameter (chat_id) is well-documented in the schema with examples of both username and numeric id formats. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Return information') and resource ('a chat'), and clarifies the scope by explicitly listing the covered types (group, channel, or private). It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like get_chat_member_count (which returns a count, not general info), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_chats beyond implying a single-target lookup.

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 implies a single-chat lookup use case but provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance. It doesn't mention that this is for fetching one chat's details as opposed to get_chat_member_count or list_chats. The usage context is inferable but not explicitly stated.

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