List Administrators of Group or Channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read-only operation' merely restates that, and it adds no extra behavioral detail such as pagination or account fan-out behavior for a read tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The final 'Read-only operation' sentence is largely redundant against the readOnlyHint annotation, which slightly weakens the economy.

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 simple read tool with an output schema, rich annotations, and 100% parameter coverage, the description supplies purpose, use case, and safety context. It does not mention the multi-account fan-out behavior described in the schema, but that gap is minor.

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 both chat_id and account are already fully documented in the schema, including accepted identifier formats and multi-account fan-out. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('List all administrators and their permissions') plus the scope ('in a group or channel'). This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the nearest sibling, get_banned_users.

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?

'Use when verifying group moderation staff' gives a concrete triggering context for the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the guidance is clear.

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