validate_message

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

No annotations are provided. The description only mentions the return statuses, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or what happens if the message_id is missing or invalid. The agent lacks context on side effects or limitations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core functionality without any fluff. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks details on the format of the output statuses and the source of RSS feeds, leaving some ambiguity for advanced use 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 100% with a single parameter (message_id) described as 'Message ID to validate'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 purpose: cross-referencing a Telegram message with RSS news articles. The verb 'cross-reference' is specific and the resource is well-defined. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are mostly retrieval and stats tools.

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 implies usage for validating messages against news, but does not explicitly state when to use or provide exclusions or alternatives among siblings. No guidance on prerequisites or best practices.

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