telegram-inline-query

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: queryId validity ~60s, return format with specific fields, and the compact nature of results. This supplements the annotations well 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the primary action, then explaining return structure and usage hint. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description provides the return structure (queryId, cacheTime, results with fields). It mentions the sibling send tool and bot requirement. Pagination via offset is only in schema, not described. Overall covers essential flow sufficiently.

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% and each parameter has a description (bot, query, chatId, offset). The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions bot must be real but doesn't elaborate on other parameters. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries an inline bot in a chat context and returns a compact result list. It specifies the verb 'Query', resource 'inline bot', and context 'chat context', and distinguishes itself by mentioning the return structure and the sibling tool telegram-inline-query-send.

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?

It provides explicit workflow: query to get results, then use the queryId to deliver a chosen result via telegram-inline-query-send. It also states a prerequisite (bot must be a real bot account). However, it does not explicitly list cases when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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