sendPaidMedia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral facts: the success return value (sent Message) and the maximum price. However, it omits the defining mechanics of the operation — that users must pay Telegram Stars to unlock the media, that proceeds credit to the bot or channel balance, and what happens on payment failure. More than a tautology, but thin for a financial mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Sixteen words across two sentences with the purpose front-loaded in the first three. Every clause earns its place: the verb+resource, the success return behavior, and the pricing cap. No filler, no boilerplate, no repetition of schema content.

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?

The schema is richly self-documenting (credit routing in chat_id, broadcast fee in allow_paid_broadcast, payload semantics), and the description supplies the return type absent from an output schema. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description still leaves the paid-media value proposition, prerequisites, and the sendInvoice/sendMediaGroup boundary unexplained — high complexity for a financial tool demands more.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even with no parameter elaboration in the description. The only parameter-adjacent content ('Maximum price is 25000 Telegram Stars') merely restates the schema's star_count range (1-25000) without adding new meaning. The description adds no clarification beyond what the schema already provides for any of the 17 parameters.

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 and resource ('Send paid media') with the 'paid' qualifier distinguishing it from non-paid media siblings like sendPhoto, sendVideo, and sendMediaGroup. The return-on-success clause and 25000-Star cap add useful specificity. It falls short of a 5 because it never contrasts with sendInvoice, the closest financial sibling, and the Telegram-specific meaning of 'paid media' (Stars paywall) is left assumed.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 100 siblings including sendMediaGroup (unpaid bulk media) and sendInvoice (monetized content via a different mechanism), an agent gets zero routing help and no selection condition. A sentence such as 'For non-paid media use sendMediaGroup' would have resolved the ambiguity.

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