get_pinned_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However the description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination, message limits, or what the returned pinned messages contain, which for a list-retrieval tool is a real gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.

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?

This is a simple read-only single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, so minimal description is tolerable. Still, it omits any indication of return size or pagination behavior, leaving the agent slightly under-informed compared to a sibling-aware definition.

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% and there is only one parameter (chat_id), which the schema documents. The description adds no format or ID-semantics detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pinned messages') scoped to 'a Telegram chat', so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_messages or search_messages, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_messages, get_messages_by_date, or search_messages. The purpose is implied by the name, but no conditions or alternatives are stated.

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