Read messages sent to your Telegram bot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes far beyond by disclosing the 24-hour data retention, the fact that older messages are unrecoverable, the webhook caveat, the inability to message first, and the connector requirement. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that an agent must know to avoid false conclusions.

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 long but well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded. It contains multiple warnings and caveats, but each serves to prevent misinterpretation of Telegram's unusual behavior. However, it is somewhat verbose, repeating the 24-hour point and including extra warnings that could be condensed without loss.

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 seemingly simple read operation with no output schema, the description covers all critical context: data retention window, webhook conflict, message-first constraint, connector requirement, cost, and error-reporting guidance. It also hints at the output structure (chatId and message grouping). This is exceptional completeness for a tool with complex platform limitations.

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% because the single 'limit' parameter is already described in the schema, including its range, default, and the fact that it refers to raw updates not rows. The description adds no additional information about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies. It does not compensate further, but the schema is sufficient.

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 precise verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('messages sent to the connected Telegram bot'), and the output scope ('newest message from each chat, newest chat first'). It clearly explains the purpose ('see who is waiting on a reply') and references the sibling 'post_to_telegram' for the follow-up action, making the tool's role 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?

The description gives explicit usage context: it tells the agent when to use it (to read incoming messages), what to do with results (reply via post_to_telegram), and crucial caveats (24-hour rolling window, webhook incompatibility, bot cannot message first). It also states the prerequisite via Settings ▸ Connectors ▸ Telegram. This is comprehensive guidance that prevents misuse.

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