telegram_send_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Send a point on the map' and mentions the return format, but does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the chat_id is invalid. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by parameter definitions and a return type. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary fluff. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool, but it omits some context such as the optionality of chat_id (though the schema shows it has a default of null) and any error handling or rate limits. The return type is mentioned, and the output schema exists, so that is covered. Overall, it is sufficient for basic invocation but lacks deeper guidance for 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?

The description provides explicit semantic explanations for each parameter: latitude, longitude, chat_id, and disable_notification. While the schema only lists titles, the description explains 'Latitude of the location,' 'Send silently,' etc., which adds meaning. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it does not go into deep detail like formats or constraints.

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's function: 'Send a point on the map (geographic coordinates).' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like telegram_send_message or telegram_send_photo. The purpose is 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, such as 'use this for locations only' or 'not for text messages.' The only hint is the tool name and the generic send action, but no explicit routing.

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