telegram_api_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Login' and 'fast, efficient scraping', providing no information about session persistence, authentication checks, rate limits, error handling, or the effect of repeated logins. The tool's behavior is entirely opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action. It is concise, though the phrase 'fast, efficient scraping' adds a subjective flourish without functional value.

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?

As a login tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what happens on success/failure, what the returned data looks like, or why both parameters are optional. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret the result.

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%, with both api_id and api_hash having descriptions. The tool description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 logs into Telegram using API credentials, which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes somewhat from sibling tools like telegram_login by emphasizing 'API credentials', but doesn't fully disambiguate between the two login-related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus telegram_login or other authentication tools. The phrase 'for scraping' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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