ingest_telegram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses asynchronous/background execution over the network, the {job_id} return and required polling loop, and the failure semantics (0 posts = private/invalid/sandbox network block). It does not mention auth, rate limits, or how content lands in the corpus, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core operation and target front-loaded, then the async contract, then the input format, then the error case. Every clause carries information; no filler. Slightly telegraphic but 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential contract: what it ingests, that it is async, how to poll, and what a zero-result means. The only gap is out_path semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the handle format ('@name или name') but says nothing about out_path, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation.

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?

States a specific verb-by-implication and resource: 'Public Telegram channel → Princip's corpus'. The direction and target are clear, and it is unambiguous against siblings since it is the only ingestion-of-telegram tool. It loses a point only because the action is expressed via arrow notation rather than an explicit verb.

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?

Provides operational guidance: it is a background job, returns {job_id}, and instructs to poll job_status (a known sibling). It also gives the handle format. What is missing is any explicit 'use this when...' framing versus alternatives, but the tool is unique enough that this is minor.

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