get_channel_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains accepted input forms, best-effort title resolution, ID-resolution failure, and the cache-warming dependency on list_dialogs. It could add error or rate-limit details, but the disclosed behavior is substantial for a read-only metadata lookup.

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 short paragraphs with no filler: the first states the return fields, the second covers input forms and failure recovery. All sentences add necessary information, and the most important semantics are front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers accepted input variants, a recovery path, and the relationship to list_dialogs. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and return values are presumably handled by the output schema.

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 schema only says chat is a string or integer, but the description explains exactly what those values mean: a @username, a numeric/marked chat ID from list_dialogs, or a best-effort chat title. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and tells the agent how to construct valid input.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get title, description/about, member count, type, and username for a chat.' This clearly identifies what the tool returns and naturally distinguishes it from message-retrieval siblings like get_messages and search_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?

It gives concrete guidance on accepted chat identifiers and a specific fallback: 'call list_dialogs first to warm the client's entity cache, then retry' when ID resolution fails. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other metadata tools, but the context is clear for a one-parameter lookup.

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