Show or clear the typing indicator

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

With readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true already declared, the description adds useful behavioral context: the indicator auto-expires, action 'cancel' removes it immediately, and nothing is sent to chat history. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the added side-effect detail is valuable.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by useful expiry and side-effect details, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and action behavior, and there is no output schema to explain. But for a tool with three parameters and zero schema descriptions, it omits important details about chat format and topicId, leaving an agent to infer required parameter formats.

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%, so the description must compensate for three parameters. It clarifies action semantics ('cancel' removes immediately; default shows typing), but provides no explanation for the required chat parameter or the optional topicId parameter, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: showing or clearing the typing indicator in a chat. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool, which the rubric reserves for a 5.

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 explains the two action values and notes that Telegram expires the indicator automatically, giving implied usage context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_message, nor does it provide exclusions.

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