create_chat_id_discovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and meets it: it reveals creation semantics, return payload contents, the Telegram-open flow, auth requirements (Proof account / PROOF_API_KEY), and the dependency on subsequent polling. It also warns about qr_text renderer misuse.

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?

Although the description is longer than average, every sentence earns its place by carrying workflow, safety, or access-critical detail. The key facts are front-loaded, and the structure follows a clear progression: purpose, agent usage, and access.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it defines return values in usable formats, names successor tools (render_auth_link, poll_chat_id_discovery), and covers the access failure mode. An agent has enough information to call it and orchestrate the full chat ID discovery flow.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is complete, so no parameter-level explanation is needed. The description adds no parameter meaning, but with no parameters to document, the baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement, 'Create a Telegram chat ID discovery token,' and enumerates concrete return artifacts (deep_link, qr_code, qr_text). This clearly distinguishes the tool from polling, rendering, and login-related siblings.

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 provides explicit workflow instructions: pass deep_link to render_auth_link, never hand qr_text to a link renderer, print qr_text only in a real terminal, poll with the returned token, and use the discovered chat_id for HITL config. It also states access prerequisites and warns that start_login does not open this tool.

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