Search users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds the return shape ('ids, usernames, types'), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about result ranking, partial matching, or the meaning of the limit bound.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the search scope and accepted keys come first, followed by the return shape.

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 tool with annotations covering safety and a stated return shape, this is nearly complete. The remaining gap is limit behavior and any note on match semantics, both minor.

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% with 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' accepts a name or an @username, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter's default or maximum.

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 ('Global search for users/chats') plus the search keys (name or @username). It is distinguishable from telegram_search_messages, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named telegram_search_global.

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, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. The word 'Global' implies scope, but the agent is left to infer that this is the right tool for resolving a user into an id before calling tools like telegram_full_user.

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