Get chat info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reach profile is covered externally. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only allowlisted chats are retrievable and, since no output schema exists, lists the fields returned. It does not say what happens on a non-allowlisted or unknown chat (error vs empty result), which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return-field list appended where it is most useful. No redundant or filler wording; it stops slightly short of being fully self-contained rather than being padded.

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 one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete: the parameter is fully documented and, with no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields. The only missing piece an agent might want is failure behavior for chats outside the allowlist.

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% and the single 'chat' parameter already documents the accepted formats (@username, t.me link, numeric id, exact title). The description restates 'allowlisted chat' without adding format or resolution guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get details about') and a precisely scoped resource ('one allowlisted chat'), then enumerates the returned attributes (title, type, username, member count, description). The 'one' contrast against the sibling list_allowed_chats is implied but never stated outright, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the single-chat lookup as opposed to the bulk list_allowed_chats or the message-oriented get_messages, but nothing in the text says when to prefer one over the other. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions beyond the 'allowlisted' qualifier.

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