batch_status

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait: unconfirmed status is not necessarily failure and automatic retry after crash/timeout is unsafe. This materially changes how an agent should act, which is exactly the kind of disclosure that matters.

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, front-loaded with the operation and parameter, followed by included fields and a critical caveat. No wasted words and all content earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches the expected payload (roles, tags, metadata, Telegram ids, reply relationships) and gives the key operational caveat. It does not cover error/expiry behavior or explicit sibling routing, but for a one-parameter read tool it is nearly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It identifies request_id as the lookup key, but does not explain how to obtain it, expected format, or behavior for missing/expired IDs. The single string parameter is self-explanatory enough to remain usable, but not richly described.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Read persisted delivery receipts by request_id') that immediately distinguishes it as a read/status operation from siblings like send_batch and batch_cleanup. It also lists what the receipts include, making the scope unmistakable.

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 establishes clear context for when to call it (query delivery status by request_id) and adds a practical rule: 'unconfirmed may mean delivered: do not retry automatically.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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