get_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: non-trivial latency (20-90s), token cost, and that output matches the Telegram-delivered digest. It does not mention auth/permission needs, rate limits, or whether a run mutates any stored state (e.g., caching a digest), which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the two facts that affect tool choice (runtime/cost) and then the argument documentation. Every sentence earns its place; no restating of the name or 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description still signals the output shape ('formats the result exactly as the digest delivered to Telegram'). Combined with the documented parameter and routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% — the schema exposes only a defaulted integer with no bounds or explanation. The description fully compensates by defining what 'hours' means (how far back to look), its valid range (1 to 168), and its default (24), adding constraints the schema does not encode.

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+resource ('Generate a fresh digest of the configured Telegram channels') and then spells out the internal pipeline (collect messages, summarize with AI, format as the Telegram digest). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_last_digest, so an agent can route between them without opening a 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 explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'prefer get_last_digest when recent data is enough.' It also gives the cost/latency tradeoff (20-90 seconds, AI tokens) that justifies that preference, which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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