telegram-get-unread-reactions

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

Discloses side effect: 'Marks all reactions as read on the server when all unread reactions fit within the requested limit.' This is beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and adds practical context about partial marking behavior.

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: first states purpose, second adds critical behavioral note. No fluff, well-structured.

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?

No output schema and description does not describe return format (e.g., what message data is returned). Side effect condition is somewhat vague (what happens if limit is too small?). Could be more complete for a fetch+mutate tool.

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 parameter descriptions. Tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get messages with unread reactions on your posts in a Telegram chat', using specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like telegram-get-reactions (which likely returns all reactions) and telegram-get-unread-mentions (mentions, not 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?

Implies usage for fetching unread reactions, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Does not mention alternatives like telegram-mark-as-read if you only want to mark without fetching.

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