Get Current Account Profile and Identity

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact identity fields returned and mentioning account/session verification use cases. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states what the tool returns, the second states when to use it. No filler or redundancy; key distinctions are front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple, low-risk read-only tool with no required parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema. The description fully covers what an agent needs to know to call it correctly and appropriately.

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 the optional 'account' parameter is fully documented by the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 a precise resource ('detailed profile identity of the current Telegram user account') and lists the concrete fields returned (ID, name, username, phone). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_username or list_contacts, which operate on other accounts or entities.

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?

It gives a clear context for use: 'verifying account identity, session details, or caller permissions.' There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but because the tool is unique among siblings, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to select it.

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