telegram-get-message-read-participants

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds return format (userId, readAt), constraints, and error behavior. No contradiction with annotations. It adds useful behavioral context beyond structured data.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers core purpose and output format; the second covers limitations. No wasted words. Information is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, two parameters fully documented), the description covers purpose, return data, constraints, and error case. Combined with annotations, it provides complete context for correct usage.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and types. It implicitly references needed parameters but provides no extra detail.

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 verb (List), resource (who has read a message), and constraints (small group size ≤100, message age ≤7 days). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like telegram-get-outbox-read-date and telegram-get-reactions.

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 explicitly states when not to use ('Does NOT work for channels or groups over 100 members') and the expected error (CHAT_TOO_BIG). It implicitly suggests use for small groups, but does not name alternative tools for large groups.

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