Resolve Telegram Username to Entity ID

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 closing 'Read-only operation' sentence largely restates structured data. The description does add value by specifying the returned identity pair (ID + object type), but it omits failure behavior for non-existent or private usernames and any rate-limit caveats. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then the routing rule, then the safety note. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description covers purpose, timing, and return type. The only gap is behavior on unresolvable handles, which an agent would likely want before committing to a resolution-then-fetch chain.

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%, and the schema already documents that the handle omits the leading '@' and how the optional account parameter behaves in multi-account mode. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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 (resolve) and resource (@username) plus exactly what it yields: the underlying Telegram entity ID and object type. This clearly separates it from ID-consuming siblings like get_chat or get_user_status, which require an already-known identifier.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule: 'Use before calling ID-based tools when only a username handle is known.' It does not name any alternative or exclusion, though siblings such as search_contacts or search_public_chats could plausibly overlap, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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