search_public_chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; does not join anything', which is valuable for a public-directory search tool. It also discloses a behavioral nuance about result composition (known vs strangers), though it omits details like auth needs or rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key behavioral note. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search, the description covers what the tool does, who it targets, and a critical safety behavior. There is no output schema, but the known/stranger split is disclosed. Minor gaps remain around pagination and result shape, but they are not essential for invoking this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already documented. The description adds only that the search is by name, which aligns with 'query'. This is adequate but not additive beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search Telegram's public directory by name'. It clearly targets channels and groups the account has never joined, which distinguishes it from message search or listing already-known chats.

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 gives clear context: this is for searching public chats by name, and results are split into known and stranger entities. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to route most agents correctly.

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