telegram_search_messages

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation is not contradicted and already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful scoping context (global vs chat-scoped search), but it does not disclose behavioral details beyond that, such as whether only accessible chats are searched, result ordering, or how matches are returned.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, the scoping modifier comes second, and the use-case sentence earns its place by helping an agent decide when to invoke the tool.

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?

Adequate but with gaps: there is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what results look like, and it remains silent on that. The limit parameter is undocumented, and there is no mention of ordering or pagination behavior, which matters when locating a specific deadline or topic.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It explicitly explains chat_id ('inside a supplied chat_id') and implicitly explains query ('Search Telegram message text'), but it says nothing about the limit parameter, which remains unexplained by both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Telegram message text'), and two scopes ('globally' vs 'inside a supplied chat_id'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like telegram_search_chats and telegram_search_media by anchoring on message text, and the use cases (topic, deadline, specification, file discussion) sharpen what the tool is for.

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?

'Use this to locate a topic, deadline, specification, or file discussion' gives actionable context on when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as telegram_search_chats/telegram_search_media, leaving some sibling differentiation to inference.

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