Find Existing Dialogs with Contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only operation' merely restates structured data and earns no credit. The description adds nothing beyond that – no pagination behavior, result ordering, or account fan-out caveats.

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 no filler. Slightly tighter than needed – the final 'Read-only operation' sentence is redundant given annotations.

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?

A simple two-parameter read tool with a full output schema, so return values need no explanation. Purpose, scope, and usage context are all present; only the account fan-out nuance and any result-size limits are left entirely to the schema.

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%: the schema fully documents both contact_id (numeric Telegram user ID) and account (multi-account fan-out behavior). The description's mention of 'a specific contact ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and a precisely scoped resource: groups and channels shared between the account and a contact. This scope naturally separates it from siblings like get_chats (all chats) and list_contacts, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 inspecting mutual group memberships' gives a clear usage context, but there are no exclusions and no pointers to alternatives such as get_chats or get_full_chat when the agent wants a broader view. Adequate but minimal.

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