Get Telegram Chat Info

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying return fields and error cases, enhancing transparency beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 description is concise, well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, error handling). Every sentence is informative and earns its place, with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, strong annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, how to supply input, and common errors. No gaps remain.

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 100% and the property description is already clear. The description's 'Args' section restates the parameter format, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to look up details about a chat, listing specific returned fields (title/name, type, description, invite link). This distinctively identifies the tool from its siblings (send, delete, pin, etc.) which perform different actions.

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 provides error handling conditions ('chat not found' scenarios) that implicitly guide when the tool can be used: only for chats the bot has interacted with. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools.

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