send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly identifies the core action (send message) without stating side effects like the 4096-character limit (which is in the schema param but not the description) or delivery guarantees. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens on failure. For a straightforward messaging tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately front-loaded with the primary action. While it could arguably add a bit more context, for a simple messaging tool, this brevity is appropriate and efficient.

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?

There's an output schema present, and all 5 parameters are documented with 100% schema coverage, so the structured data carries significant explanatory weight. The tool is relatively simple (send a message). However, the description doesn't address behavioral nuances like what happens with markdown parsing failures, the character limit, or when disable_web_page_preview matters. For a medium-complexity tool with good structured coverage, this is adequate but has room for richer guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly (text limit, target format, parse_mode options, reply_to, preview toggle). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'Send a text message.' Given the high schema coverage, the baseline 3 applies—the description doesn't need to repeat what the schema already covers.

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+resource: 'Send a text message to a Telegram chat.' It clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like send_photo or send_document, though the message-type distinction is implied by 'text message' and the overall toolset context.

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 usage for sending text messages, and the schema makes the required parameters obvious. However, there's no explicit guidance about when to use this vs. edit_message_text, or when rich formatting (parse_mode) is appropriate. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer context.

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