search_public_channels

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: permission requirements, metadata-only results, Telegram ordering, non-exhaustive results, no cursor, possible fewer-than-limit returns, omitted unknown participant counts, and retry advice after temporary failure. These details materially help an agent set expectations and handle results.

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 text is front-loaded with the core action and then lists operational caveats in compact sentences. Every sentence adds useful behavioral or permission context with no 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 read-only, open-world search tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, result type, ordering, exhaustiveness, pagination absence, and failure handling. It stops short of describing returned channel metadata fields, but the key expectations for invoking it are present.

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%, and the description adds useful query semantics: trimmed, 1..1000 characters, plus failure/retry behavior. It does not explain the limit parameter beyond indirectly noting results can be fewer than limit, so the second parameter remains 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 and resource: "Find public broadcast channels by a trimmed query." It also distinguishes the result from sibling search_messages by clarifying it returns channel metadata, not posts. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 clear usage context: requires allow_public_channel_discovery, and reading selected channels requires separate retrieval permission. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like get_similar_channels or list_chats, so routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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