telegram_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists returned fields (first mention channel, etc.) but does not disclose error handling, prerequisite data existence, or any limitations beyond input scope.

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?

Concise three-part structure: purpose, output summary, usage note, then parameter list. No wasted words; front-loaded with key purpose.

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?

Covers all parameters and usage context. Has output schema (context signal), so description's mention of return fields adds but isn't essential. Missing prerequisites like stock code validity, but still complete enough for basic use.

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 0%, so description adds value. It explains query as '종목명 또는 6자리 종목코드', hours as '윈도우(시간)' with default, and bucket_minutes as '시간 버킷 크기(분)' with default, supplementing the schema.

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 it returns the buzz timeline for a specific stock, using a specific verb '반환합니다' (returns) and resource '버즈 전개(타임라인)'. It distinguishes from sibling telegram_search by specifying this is for stock code matching only.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (stock code matching) and when not to (macro/geopolitical/theme questions), directing the agent to telegram_search for other queries.

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