telegram_briefing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds behavioral context by stating the tool returns aggregated data and instructs the agent to then send via telegram_send_me, and notes the 'only once' constraint. It also explains the hours parameter's meaning. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 bit long but well-organized: trigger phrases are front-loaded, then the return data categories, then the send instruction, and finally the parameter explanation. Bullet points aid readability. No redundant fluff, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (which presumably documents the return structure), the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, how to use the output (via _playbook), and the recommended hours value. It doesn't detail the output format, but that's covered by the schema and _playbook, so completeness is high.

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 only parameter, hours, is explained in detail: it's the aggregation time range, with a recommended value of 12 for pre-market (overnight~morning) and a default of 12. The schema only defines it as a number, so this description fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool's function: it aggregates Telegram mention data for market briefing, listing two specific data categories (trending and momentum). It also differentiates from sibling tools like telegram_trending and telegram_momentum by positioning itself as a combined briefing tool ('한 번에 모아'). The trigger phrases make the purpose immediately clear.

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 explicitly lists the request phrases that should trigger this tool (e.g., '오늘 브리핑', '장전', '시황'). It also gives post-call guidance: use the returned _playbook to compose a plain-text message and send it exactly once via telegram_send_me. This is unambiguous usage direction.

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