get_chat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds genuinely new context: allowlist gating and the allow_public_channel_reads flag for public channels. It does not describe the returned metadata fields, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, the primary purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds a distinct fact (accepted formats, allowlist gating, ID resolution). No repetition or filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the definition covers input formats and access constraints well. What 'chat metadata' contains is left implicit, but nothing required to invoke the tool correctly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: chat_ref accepts a numeric ID, an exact @username, or a t.me[/s]/username URL. That is exactly the missing meaning an agent needs to construct a valid argument.

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 and resource: 'Read permitted chat metadata', and confines scope to metadata (not messages or history), which separates it from siblings like get_messages or search_messages. It never names a sibling directly, so it stops short of the top score, but an agent can tell what it does.

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?

Gives real usage conditions: public channels outside the allowlist need allow_public_channel_reads, and unknown numeric IDs may need resolving via username or URL first. It does not compare against alternatives such as list_chats or search_public_channels, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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