tg_chat_info

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: counters are server-counted with no history download, zero counts are omitted, similar results may be empty or truncated, and truncation is signaled in the reply. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with a concise summary followed by an Args block. Each parameter explanation adds value, though the similar explanation is slightly elongated with caveats; still, no sentence is wasted.

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?

Without an output schema, the description still surfaces the expected fields, counter categories, and special reply behavior such as total/truncated for similar. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call this tool and how to configure its parameters.

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 carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains chat accepted formats (id, @username, exact title), counters semantics and behavior, and similar's channel-only scope plus truncation behavior. This is rich, actionable parameter documentation.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving details about a chat or person, including id, username, type, member count, and bio. It goes beyond a tautology by enumerating what 'info' means, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like tg_person or tg_status.

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 practical guidance for using optional parameters: counters should be used to see how much content is available before fetching, and similar is channel-only. It provides clear context for parameter choices, though it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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