get_channel_info

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 reveals that title resolution is best-effort, that ID resolution can fail on a fresh session, and that warming the cache via list_dialogs fixes it. This adds meaningful operational context beyond the 'get' intent, though it does not mention rate limits or permission requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states precisely what the tool returns, and the second sentence covers input forms and a failure-handling workflow. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 tool has only one parameter, and that parameter is thoroughly explained. An output schema exists, so the return values need not be re-described. The description also covers the main failure mode and its remedy, making this complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema only says 'chat' can be a string or integer with no semantic detail. The description fully compensates by explaining the accepted formats (@username, numeric/marked ID from list_dialogs, or best-effort title), so an agent knows exactly what values to pass and how to resolve ambiguity.

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 specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('chat info') and enumerates the exact fields returned: title, description/about, member count, type, and username. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_dialogs, which lists chats, and get_messages, which retrieves messages.

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 provides concrete input-resolution guidance: chat may be a @username, a numeric/marked ID from list_dialogs, or a best-effort chat title. It also gives a clear fallback workflow—call list_dialogs first to warm the entity cache and retry—which is actionable usage guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives.

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