get_sent_messages

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.