get_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add behavioral context by stating that bio/about is returned 'if available' and by specifying accepted identifier forms including id, @username, t.me link, phone, or 'me'. It does not mention potential errors, authorization requirements, or behavior for unsupported references.

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 description is compact and information-dense: the first sentence covers returned fields and the second covers acceptable input forms. There is no filler, repetition of schema details, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, this description covers the essential invocation details: what data is returned and what forms the chat argument can take. It lacks explicit usage differentiation and authorization/error context, but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the only parameter 'chat' by enumerating accepted formats: id, @username, t.me link, phone, or me. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema property name 'Chat'.

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 operation and outcome: retrieving information about a chat/user/channel with fields such as id, type, username, participant count, and bio. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like resolve_chat, so it stops short of full 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?

The description implies when to use this tool — when full chat metadata is needed — by listing returned fields and accepted identifier forms. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparisons with alternatives such as resolve_chat or list_dialogs.

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