Send Telegram message

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, openWorld=true, non-idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that text over 4096 characters is split into multiple messages - a side effect that explains why one call can produce several deliveries. It could go further on failure modes or rate limits.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the character-splitting caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple three-parameter send tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the main surprising behavior (message splitting). Only secondary details such as error conditions or rate limiting are absent, which is minor at this complexity.

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 100%, including a detailed format enum and a chat_id note warning against guessing destinations, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Send a text message') and the transport ('through the Telegram bot'), which clearly separates it from the send_photo sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with that sibling, but the text-vs-photo distinction is unambiguous.

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 implied by 'send a text message' - the agent knows this is the tool for outbound text. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance (e.g. bot must be a member of the chat), leaving the agent to infer conditions.

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