Gift Telegram Premium to many recipients

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

Lacking annotations, the description compensates by disclosing that the tool returns messages[] to sign with @ton/mcp, indicating the order is not executed directly. However, it doesn't cover permission requirements, fee effects, or failure behaviors.

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 concise sentences are front-loaded with the core action and key constraint; no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse to fully guide invocation. It lacks details on signing flow, parameter formats, and edge cases.

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%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It clarifies that the same duration applies to all recipients and sets the 1–10 user count, but payToken, wallet, and referrer are left 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 clearly states the tool builds a single order for gifting the same Premium duration to 1–10 users, distinguishing it from single-recipient alternatives and specifying the bulk scope. The verb 'Build' and resource 'order' are specific.

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 implies bulk use ('1–10 users', 'ONE order') but never explicitly contrasts with single gifting or states when not to use. No alternative tools are mentioned, though siblings exist.

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