users_get_by_telegram_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Find' implies a read-only operationasi, and 'via the users stream filter' hints at the underlying mechanism, but it does not disclose whether one or many results are returned, what happens on no match, or any other behavioral characteristics.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds a small but informative implementation detail.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately states the operation. However, it leaves ambiguity about the return type (single user vs. list) and does not mention behavior for missing IDs, which would be useful for a fully complete definition.

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?

The schema already fully documents telegramId with a description ('Telegram user ID'). The tool description only restates the identifier concept without adding meaning about format, constraints, or usage beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('Remnawave users'), and a precise lookup criterion ('Telegram ID'). It is differentiated from sibling lookup tools such as users_get_by_username and users_get_by_email by naming the exact identifier used.

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?

When to use the tool is implied ('when you have a Telegram ID'), but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative lookup tool to choose. Given many users_get_by_* siblings, explicit routing would be more helpful.

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