Get single message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further: it does not say what happens for a deleted or inaccessible message, whether the call affects read state, or what the response contains.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the minimum is present. However, with 0% parameter description coverage the agent is left guessing about chat identifier format and message id semantics, so it is only marginally complete.

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 0% for both required parameters. The phrase 'by id from a chat' loosely maps to messageId and chat, but gives no format guidance (numeric id vs username vs t.me link, message id vs id within a chat), which is exactly the gap the description should fill at this coverage level.

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 (fetch), resource (message), scope (one, by id) and source (a chat). This cleanly separates it from bulk siblings like telegram_get_history or telegram_search_messages, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

No indication of when to prefer this over telegram_get_history, telegram_search_messages, telegram_pinned_messages, or telegram_search_global, and no prerequisites (e.g. must already know the message id) are stated. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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