tg_history_batch

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds extra behavioral detail: brief mode drops reactions, link cards, and edit times while keeping messages identical, and search is applied to every chat. It stops short of describing failure or pagination behavior, but the added context is solid.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds functional value, including the triage caveat for brief, with 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?

For a batch read tool with no output schema, the description covers use case, parameter meanings, and behavioral nuances thoroughly. The only notable gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned data, but the core usage context is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of documenting parameters. It does so well: chats accepts ids, @usernames, or exact titles; limit is per chat; search applies to every chat; and brief has a precise effect on output size and content.

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 action ('Read several chats in one call') with a resource ('chats') and a limit ('up to 25'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tg_history by explicitly positioning itself as a batch alternative, so an agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs.

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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of calling tg_history repeatedly when comparing or summarising multiple conversations.' This gives a clear condition and names the alternative, and also includes a caveat about brief mode being for triage, not close reading.

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