telegram-get-story-views

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). It details the return structure (per-viewer entries, totals, nextOffset) and caveats (Premium restrictions, error hints). No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loading the main action and then covering constraints. Every sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description explains return fields and key constraints. It mentions totals and pagination but doesn't specify exact field names or types, which the output schema would provide. The description is comprehensive given the tool's complexity, but a slightly more detailed output description could improve 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for 'chat' (explains it must be your own user id/@username) and 'offset' (pagination usage). For other parameters like 'forwardsFirst', it clarifies sorting behavior. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 'List viewers of one of YOUR stories', specifying the resource (your story viewers) and action (list). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing it only works for stories the user posted, not others' stories. The inclusion of the Telegram API method name further clarifies.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: only for stories the user posted. It also notes limitations (non-Premium accounts, old stories may not get full list, Premium hint on errors). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get-peer-stories or get-stories-by-id, missing an opportunity to guide the agent on alternatives.

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