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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no indication of result ordering, volume, pagination, or what constitutes 'outgoing' versus other message types.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though very terse given the tool's schema gaps.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, with zero schema description coverage on the only parameter and no usage routing to siblings, the description leaves clear gaps for an agent deciding between the three telegram tools.

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% for the single 'date' parameter, so the schema itself provides no meaning. The description partially compensates by specifying the 'ISO date' format, but adds nothing about timezone, range boundaries, or whether partial dates are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('outgoing text messages') with a scoping condition ('on an ISO date'). It is reasonably distinguishable from telegram_get_conversations and telegram_get_chat_history, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling conversation/chat-history tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The agent must infer that this is the sent-message-specific lookup.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying newest-first ordering and that the result is text history, but it does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core operation, ordering, and identifier format.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description is adequate but incomplete. It leaves usage guidelines absent and two of three parameters undocumented, which matters given 0% schema description coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that chat_id accepts a numeric ID or @username, which adds value beyond the anyOf schema type, but it says nothing about the limit or before_msg_id 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 gives a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('text history'), scope ('newest-first'), and chat identifier format ('numeric ID or @username'). It implicitly contrasts with siblings that list conversations or sent messages, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus telegram_get_conversations or get_sent_messages. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage context to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are text conversations scoped to a date range; it says nothing about pagination, volume limits, auth/allowlist requirements, or what happens if no date is supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the date-scoping constraint is stated up front. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover read-only semantics. But with 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most input semantics (allowlists, chat types) undocumented, which is a substantial gap for a filtering tool.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the schema provides no help. The description clarifies only the date/start_date/end_date interplay; chat_types, group_allowlist_ids, group_allowlist_names, and private_allowlist_ids are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("text conversations") with a scoping qualifier ("on one date or an inclusive date range"). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling telegram_get_chat_history, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 "on one date or an inclusive date range" implicitly tells the agent how to scope the call, which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (get_sent_messages, telegram_get_chat_history), leaving the selection decision to inference.

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