get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the tri-state meaning of 'authorized' (true/false/null), that 'error' explains a failure, and that 'connected' is reported independently of authorization.

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?

Two short sentences: the capability first, then the result-field meanings. No filler, no repetition of the name, and the most decision-relevant detail (the null case) is included.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and it does so for the most critical fields. It stops short of describing what the 'discovery policy' and 'read scope' portions of the response look like, which leaves a small gap for a purely diagnostic 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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its space on return-field semantics (authorized, error, connected), which is the useful information for a no-arg 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and the exact resource set: Telegram authorization, connection, discovery policy and read scope. It is clearly the diagnostic/status tool among a sibling list of message and chat retrieval tools, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Use is implied — an agent infers it should call this to verify auth before other Telegram operations — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite framing. 'Fresh' hints at forcing a live check rather than cached state, but that is left implicit.

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