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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what is returned (window before/after, all replies), which conveys behavioral scope, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a read tool with no annotations, this is minimal.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and ends with the scope. No wasted words.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. However, it lacks usage context (when to use vs siblings) and full parameter semantics. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent to select and invoke correctly without checking other tools.

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. It mentions 'window messages before/after', implying the window parameter controls the number of messages, but does not specify that it's an integer count or its default (10). The message_id is clearly required. The description adds some meaning but leaves the window parameter semantics underspecified.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (context around a message), and clarifies the scope: window messages before/after plus all replies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sync or list_chats.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or get_stats. The description implies usage (to get context around a message) but provides no explicit when/when-not criteria or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the categories of data returned, but omits read-only status, side effects, permissions, or caching behavior. For a simple stats tool this is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and its contents with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It still lists the main statistics, which is sufficient for a no-parameter read tool. It could mention read-only safety, but the core context is complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the scoring rules, zero parameters sets a baseline of 4.

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 names a specific resource ('Index statistics') and enumerates the contents ('total messages, per-chat breakdown, DB size'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_chats, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 describes what statistics are returned but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_chats or search. There are no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the meaningful scope constraint that only *indexed* chats are shown. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result-size limits for what could be a long list.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope constraint ('indexed') front-loaded before the field list. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but no words are 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and an empty input schema means no parameter semantics are required. The only real gap is pagination/ordering behavior for a potentially long list.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The field list in the description describes the return shape rather than adding parameter semantics, but there is nothing for it to clarify.

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?

States a clear verb ('Show') and resource ('indexed chats') plus the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'search' or 'get_stats', so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: a zero-argument listing tool is fairly self-explanatory, but the description never says when to pick this over 'search' (e.g., to enumerate all indexed chats vs. query them). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully characterizes mode behavior (exact words vs meaning-based vs rank fusion), but says nothing about result caps, pagination, ordering, or required permissions for reading a community's messages.

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?

One summary sentence followed by tight, scannable lines mapping parameters to meaning, with the recommended mode flagged inline. No filler and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be described, and the mode/filter semantics are covered. What remains thin is the undocumented 'limit' parameter and any sense of result volume or pagination, which matters for a search endpoint.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning, and it does good work: it enumerates the three mode values, explains chat_id filtering, and gives an ISO format example for date_from/date_to. It leaves 'limit' and 'query' undocumented, which is a partial gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search Telegram community messages,' which immediately tells an agent what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_chats or get_context, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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 three search modes and explicitly marks hybrid as 'recommended,' giving clear guidance for the most important decision. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over siblings or when a mode is inappropriate (e.g. short keyword-only lookups), so no exclusions are covered.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that messages are added and that the return value is a count of added messages, which is useful. However, it omits side effects (what gets stored, idempotency on re-sync), auth/network requirements, and whether the operation is read-only or mutating.

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The default behavior is stated first, then the parameter override, then the return value.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key operational modes and the return semantics. The lack of annotations means a bit more side-effect detail would help, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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, and it does: it explains that chat_id scopes the sync to one chat while its absence means all configured chats. That adds real meaning beyond the bare integer/null schema, though it does not clarify how chat_id is obtained.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Sync new messages from Telegram'), making the action unambiguous despite the terse tool name 'sync'. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search, get_stats, and list_chats, though it does not explicitly reference any of them.

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 describes the two invocation modes: no arguments syncs all configured chats, while passing chat_id restricts the sync to that chat. This is clear contextual guidance, but there is no statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for related needs.

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