get_channel_messages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the dual data source (stored message store vs live Telegram read), the differing latency of each path, and that the response header reveals which path was used. It stops short of covering auth/prerequisite requirements or failure behavior on the fallback path.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then the storage/fallback behavior, then a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information the agent cannot get from the structured fields, and the ranges and semantics justify restating the parameters despite the schema's default values.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given a 3-parameter, non-nested tool with no annotations, the description supplies the behavior (dual source, latency, header signal) and full parameter semantics needed to call it correctly. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines all three parameters, gives valid ranges (hours 1–168, limit 1–500), states defaults (24 and 200), explains that limit keeps the 'newest' messages, and clarifies that channel is a name or id 'as configured under channels[*] in config.yaml'. This is richer than the bare schema.

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 pairs a concrete verb ('Return') with a precise resource ('individual messages of one configured channel') and adds the scoping qualifier 'unsummarized', which cleanly separates it from the digest-oriented siblings get_digest and get_last_digest. An agent can tell what it returns and how it differs from alternatives without opening any schema.

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 gives clear operational context: the tool is 'free and instant on the stored path' when the store holds the window, and falls back to a live read taking 'a few seconds'. That tells the agent when it will be fast versus slow, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over get_digest/get_last_digest or what happens if the channel is unconfigured.

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