List pinned messages

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 usefully adds that results include sender and text, but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior despite a limit parameter, or whether it caps at Telegram's pin limit.

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 with the verb and resource first and the return content second. 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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields (sender, text). However, it omits chat identifier format, pagination/limit semantics, and result ordering, which an agent needs to call it correctly on a chat with many pins.

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 carry parameter meaning and it largely does not. It implies a chat target and mentions returned fields, but never explains the accepted chat identifier format or the limit parameter's role and default.

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 (read) and resource (pinned messages) and even hints at the return payload (sender and text), which clearly separates it from pin_message, unpin_all, and get_history siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like telegram_get_history, telegram_search_messages, and telegram_get_message, an agent gets no cue about when pinned-message listing is the right choice versus general history retrieval, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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