List participants of a group or channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful filter/search behavior, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or edge cases. 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?

Two crisp sentences front-load the core purpose and add the key options without any filler. Every word 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 5 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter descriptions, the tool description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It omits the required peer, limit semantics, and what the return value looks like. Annotations mitigate safety but not usage completeness.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'Optional filter (admins/kicked/banned/bots)' and 'substring search', which maps to filter and search but omits the enum values 'recent' and 'contacts'. It also fails to mention the required 'peer' parameter, 'limit', or 'accountId'. The compensation is partial.

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 a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('members of a group, supergroup, or channel'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_participant (singular) and other list tools (list_dialogs, list_contacts). The optional filter and search are additional scope-defining details.

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 implies when to use it (to get members of group/channel) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as get_participant or mention exclusions. It gives context about filters and search but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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