telegram-get-fact-check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: fact-checks are from independent fact-checkers in supported countries, and typical results may be empty. This enriches transparency beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides context on source and typical results, all essential information.

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?

While the description sets expectations for empty results and source, it lacks details on the output format or structure. With no output schema, the description could usefully describe what a fact-check annotation contains (e.g., text, link, rating). This gap lowers completeness.

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 both parameters (chatId, messageIds) fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters, remaining at the baseline for high coverage.

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 retrieves fact-check annotations on channel messages, specifying the resource (fact-check annotations) and action (get). It distinguishes from sibling tools like telegram-delete-fact-check and telegram-edit-fact-check by focusing on reading.

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 when fact-checks are needed but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It sets expectations by noting most messages lack fact-checks but offers no direct comparison to other tools.

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