tg_accounts

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, it discloses a real cost: access triggers one cached Telegram request per account. It also clarifies installation-scoped vs per-account data, and warns about two default notions that must not be confused, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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?

The description is long but every section earns its place: core purpose first, then row fields, then the critical using/default warning, then ownership and shared-vs-per-account facts, then the Args block. The structure front-loads the most important information and ends with parameter guidance.

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 carries the burden of explaining the returned information, and it does so thoroughly: row fields, default semantics, shared vs account-level data, and the access parameter's side effects. An agent has enough to select and invoke the 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?

The schema only exposes a boolean `access` with a default; the description fully compensates by explaining what access adds (Premium plus tool availability counts), the cost of setting it true, and when to pass false. This is exactly the information an agent needs 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?

The opening sentence states the resource precisely: which Telegram accounts the daemon holds and which one calls go to. The description then details row fields and explicitly separates `using` from `default`, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from related tools like tg_account_use.

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 for when the tool is relevant, such as understanding current active account versus persisted default, and references tg_account_use to explain how they can diverge. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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