getUpdates

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the polling mechanism and the array return, but omits the endpoint's critical behavioral traits: that offset/update_id acts as an acknowledgment and confirmed updates are not redelivered, and that getUpdates conflicts with an active webhook. These are the main traps an agent could fall into.

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 sentences with zero filler: the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the return-type note earns its place in the second. Nothing extraneous to cut.

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?

Adequate for basic invocation: all parameters are documented in the schema and the return type is stated despite the lack of an output schema. However, for a moderate-complexity endpoint with subtle semantics — update acknowledgment, webhook exclusivity, long-polling timeout behavior — the missing constraints leave the description incomplete for fully correct usage.

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% — all four parameters have descriptive text in the schema, so the baseline is 3 even with no param detail in the description. The 'long polling' mention adds mild context for the timeout parameter's behavior, but the description adds no syntax or format information 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 states a specific verb ('Receive'), a resource ('incoming updates'), and the delivery mechanism ('long polling'), and it names the return type ('Array of Update objects'). It implicitly differentiates from webhook-based siblings like setWebhook and getWebhookInfo through the polling mention, but it never names the alternative explicitly.

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 phrase 'using long polling' implies a polling-mode context and hints that webhook delivery is an alternative, but it doesn't state when to prefer this tool over setWebhook or warn that the two mechanisms are mutually exclusive. Usage context is implied, not explicit.

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