telegram-send-paid-reaction

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable context: Stars are debited from the balance, and the private flag affects leaderboard visibility. This goes beyond 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the key constraint (Stars spending) and optional flag effect. Every phrase adds value.

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 cost implications (Stars), the description lacks details about error handling (e.g., insufficient balance), return values, or confirmation. While parameters are covered, the absence of output schema and minimal completeness bring this to a 3.

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%, but the description adds explanatory context: 'count' is tied to Stars spending, and 'private' flag controls leaderboard anonymity. This helps an agent understand parameter semantics 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 the action ('Send a paid reaction'), the target resource ('channel post'), and the mechanism ('Stars are spent from your balance'). It distinguishes this from the sibling 'telegram-send-reaction' by specifying 'paid' and referencing Stars.

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 when to use this tool (for paid reactions) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'telegram-send-reaction' for free reactions. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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