expand_cited_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'bounded payload/work budgets' but doesn't explain what limits those impose or what happens when budgets are exceeded. It doesn't disclose whether this mutates state, requires auth, or what the return format looks like. The phrase 'Expand... sources' is ambiguous about the actual behavior.

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 compact sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is under-specified rather than concise -- being short for a 6-parameter tool with no schema coverage is a completeness problem, not a conciseness virtue.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter roles (citations, limit, context, token_budget), the meaning of 'expansion', return values, or failure/error behavior. The description covers perhaps 15% of what an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not mention any parameters by name or explain their meaning. Six parameters including limit, context, citations, token_budget are entirely undocumented in the description. The name suggests 'citations' and budgets are central, but no semantics are clarified.

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 verb (expand) and a resource (explicit cited Telegram sources) but is somewhat vague. 'Under current scope and bounded payload/work budgets' hints at constraints but doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like retrieve_evidence or get_message_context. It's clear enough about the core action but lacks specificity about what 'expansion' entails.

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?

The description says 'only explicit cited' sources, which gives some guidance on what qualifies. However, there's no mention of when to use this vs. alternatives like retrieve_evidence, get_message_context, or search_messages. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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