telegram_get_channel_info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the bot membership/admin requirement and the response format behavior (json vs markdown). It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured with an 'Args' and 'Returns' section. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value without fluff. The formatting is easy to parse for an agent.

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-only tool with only two parameters, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return format. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters: channel_id accepts a username ('@mychannel') or numeric ID, and response_format accepts 'json' or 'markdown' with a default. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Get detailed information about a Telegram channel.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('channel info'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling publish/edit/delete/search tools by focusing on retrieval rather than mutation.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this tool to retrieve metadata and statistics about a channel where the bot is a member or admin.' It implies the prerequisite (bot membership/admin) without explicitly naming alternatives, but the sibling tools are obviously for different operations, making the intended use clear.

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