tg_limits

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, so the description adds value by explaining the plain-vs.-premium ceiling behavior and the fact that the same action can fail at different points depending on account tier. It also discloses that the full response can get long, which is useful behavior context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds context, including usage guidance, an exclusion, and parameter semantics. It is slightly wordy around the motivating scenario, but not wasteful enough to drop to a 3.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke correctly: what the tool returns, how the account tier affects results, when to pass `full`, and where related non-limit setup information lives. No critical operational detail is missing for this simple read-only tool.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates for the single parameter. It explains that `full` returns every default/premium pair and config keys, and gives explicit guidance on when to use it: only when hunting for a limit not in the curated list, because the answer gets long.

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 as exposing account-level Telegram limits and the Premium flag, with examples of the kinds of limits covered. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' and it distinguishes itself from tg_status but not from the potentially similar tg_capabilities, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to read this tool: before promising the owner something that may exceed account limits, instead of guessing or trying and failing. It also explicitly excludes local setup details and routes those to tg_status, giving a clear when-not-to-use and an alternative.

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