Get chat info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by disclosing the success return type (info dict) and conditional behaviors (topics_limit for forums, common_chats_limit for users). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, success/conditional details, and a documentation link. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource, no redundant phrases, every sentence 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?

Given the two well-documented parameters, existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the key nuances (forum topics, user common chats) and provides a full documentation link. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining how topics_limit affects output for forum chats and mentioning common_chats_limit (a response field not in the schema), adding behavioral meaning to the 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 uses a specific verb 'Load' with a clear resource 'profile and metadata for one user, bot, group, or channel', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_messages or send_message. It precisely scopes the tool to a single target entity.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (for fetching single-chat info) and mentions special cases (forum topics, user common chats). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is unambiguous for the primary use case.

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