search_public

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the global scope, the entity types searched, the matching key, and the 3-character minimum. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or auth requirements, but the output schema likely covers return shape.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains all essential scoping information plus the minimum-length constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema available. The description provides the key usage prerequisite (3+ characters) and scope. Minor gaps such as limit behavior and explicit alternative routing prevent a 5.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'query' by explaining it is a name or @username and must be at least 3 characters. The 'limit' parameter is left entirely without semantic context beyond its default value.

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 ('search') and resource ('public groups/channels and people in Telegram'), and specifies the lookup key (name/@username). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_messages, which operate on message content.

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 makes clear this is for global/public discovery rather than in-chat search or contact lookup, so an agent can infer when to choose it over search_messages/get_contacts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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