Gift Telegram Premium (single recipient)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool 'Returns messages[] to sign with @ton/mcp', indicating it builds a signable order rather than executing directly. However, it does not disclose prerequisites such as wallet setup, payToken implications, or post-signing behavior.

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 contains two short sentences and every phrase is useful: the action, the duration options, the recipient scope, and the return shape. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool (5 params, nested wallet, no output schema), and the description only sketches the order-building behavior. It lacks details about wallet requirements, payToken semantics, recipient identifier format, and what happens after signing, so an agent would need to rely on sibling tools or schema despite low schema coverage.

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 only 20% (only referrer has a description), so the description must compensate. It adds 'one user' and '3, 6 or 12 months', but those largely restate the schema's required fields and enums. The payment token, wallet object, and recipient format remain unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Build an order to gift Telegram Premium' and states the scope 'to one user', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling hoton_buy_premium_bulk. The title reinforces the single-recipient scope.

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 phrase 'to one user' establishes a clear context for single-recipient gifts, and the sibling list includes a bulk variant, making the intended use evident. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so a score of 5 is not warranted.

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