Get Chat Details and Metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no side-effect, auth, rate-limit, or error behavior beyond restating that metadata is retrieved; the listed return fields are redundant with the existing output schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage condition is appended in the same breath.

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-only lookup with two params, a full schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description plus structured data is complete. An agent knows exactly when to call it and what it returns.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of 'chat ID or @username' merely echoes (and slightly under-specifies) the chat_id property description, and it adds nothing about the account parameter.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('core metadata, title, member count, and type for a specific chat or channel'). It distinguishes the tool from list-oriented siblings by limiting to a specific known chat, and the usage clause ('known chat ID or @username') disambiguates further.

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?

Provides clear context ('Use when inspecting a known chat ID or @username'), which indicates the intended condition for use. It does not name alternatives (e.g., list_chats for discovery, resolve_username for resolution) or offer explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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