get_similar_channels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail on top: results are bounded with no cursor or completeness guarantee, telegram_total_count vs locally_truncated report different limits, and the discovery permission is separate from retrieval permission. That is meaningful disclosure for a read-only call. The main omission is any statement of what a result record contains.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and each following sentence carries a distinct operational fact (accepted formats, permission requirement, completeness caveat, retry rule). It is dense and slightly prose-like for a two-parameter tool, but no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value explanation and does so partially, naming the bounded-metadata behavior and the telegram_total_count / locally_truncated distinction. It stops short of describing the per-result shape and leaves the limit parameter's meaning unstated, which is a real gap for a discovery 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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does well on chat_ref, enumerating the accepted forms (numeric ID, @username, t.me[/s]/username URL) and the failure mode for unknown IDs. It says nothing about limit beyond an oblique reference to locally_truncated, leaving its default, ceiling of 100, and effect unexplained — half the parameters are effectively undocumented.

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 ("Find similar public channels") plus the scope constraint ("for a required public broadcast source"), so the agent knows this is discovery-by-example rather than keyword search. It never names the closest sibling, search_public_channels, so the boundary between the two is left to the agent.

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 supplies real prerequisites and constraints: it requires allow_public_channel_discovery independently of retrieval permission, and it will not return personalized recommendations without a source. It also gives a retry instruction for temporary failures. What it never does is state when to prefer this over search_public_channels, so alternative selection remains implicit.

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