Find Telegram chat ids

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it explains the 24-hour update window, the webhook caveat, and explicitly states 'Nothing is consumed — no update offset is confirmed, so this cannot eat the bot’s pending updates.' This directly addresses side-effect concerns and data source limitations, going well beyond what annotations provide.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the purpose, then delivers critical caveats (non-exhaustive list, webhook effect, non-destructive nature). It is structured to lead with the answer and then preempt misinterpretations. A bit verbose, but not wasteful.

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 fully covers what the tool returns and when it might be incomplete or empty. It addresses edge cases (no messages, webhook), explains the update window, and reassures about side effects. An agent has all necessary information to use it correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'limit' with a description of range and default. The tool description does not mention this parameter or add any additional meaning. Since the structured schema already documents it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra value here.

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 states a specific verb (find) and resource (chat ids), and explicitly scopes it as 'this Telegram bot can be addressed by'. It immediately distinguishes itself from a full chat list by saying 'this is NOT the list of chats the bot belongs to', differentiating it from potential sibling tools like list_telegram_dms.

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?

It gives clear guidance on when to use it: to get addressable chat ids, and warns when it will fail to show chats (channels without message activity, webhook configuration). It even advises 'post to it by @username or numeric id anyway' for absent channels. It does not explicitly name sibling tools but effectively tells the agent what this tool is and is not for.

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