Discover Telegram chats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: returns metadata only and never message contents, and requires a config flag to be enabled. The main remaining gap is nothing about result ordering or whether the underlying chat list is fetched live from Telegram each call.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, safety/scope, prerequisite, and usage mode. The most decision-relevant content (what it returns and what it does not) is front-loaded with no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, precondition, and both usage modes. Minor omissions like ordering or whether limit applies to search results are not described, but nothing critical to a correct call is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description adds the meaningful default behavior that omitting the query switches the tool from search to top-chats listing. That semantic (mode selection via presence/absence of a param) is not conveyed by the schema alone.

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 and resource ('List chat ids and titles') plus the intent ('to help populate the allowlist') and an explicit scope boundary ('metadata only, never message contents'). It does not name the sibling it is distinguished from (list_allowed_chats), so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It states two clear usage modes: pass a query to search, or omit it to list top chats, and it discloses the prerequisite that allowChatDiscovery must be enabled in config.json. It stops short of explicitly excluding cases where get_chat or list_allowed_chats would be the better call.

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