telegram_search_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only (only implied by 'Searches'), nor does it mention result limits, ordering, pagination, or authentication/account prerequisites.

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?

What text exists is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good. But the description terminates mid-sentence with an ellipsis, so it is under-specified rather than concise, and the reader is left without the full statement.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least cover scope, return shape, and limits. Instead it is truncated and never completes its only substantive thought, and it names a parameter the schema does not define.

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?

The input schema declares zero properties, so there is no parameter documentation to add to. The description nonetheless references a 'chat_id' argument that does not exist in the schema, which is a misleading dangling reference rather than useful elaboration.

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 ('Searches your Telegram messages') plus the matching criterion ('by text'), which distinguishes it from telegram_read_messages and telegram_list_chats. However, it is truncated mid-sentence ('...inside...'), so the full scope of what is searched is never stated.

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 gestures at two modes (all chats vs. a specific chat) and points to telegram_list_chats as the source of chat_id, which is useful routing. But the guidance is cut off before the condition for scoping to a chat is completed, and no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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