Read Telegram history by date or unread status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral details beyond annotations: messages are not marked read, uncaptioned attachments are included, pagination must be completed before claiming coverage, and text may be truncated/bounded.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the primary behavior is stated first, followed by short, high-value caveats about dates, pagination, and truncation. Every sentence earns its place without repeating schema or annotation information.

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?

For a read-only paginated history tool, the description covers ordering, attachment inclusion, read-state impact, date semantics, pagination, and truncation. Combined with the output schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 0%, but the description compensates substantially by explaining date_from/date_to inclusivity, timezone formatting, and cursor-based pagination. It does not explicitly explain unread_only or limit, though these are largely inferable from the title and schema constraints.

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 what the tool does: reads chat history newest-first, including uncaptioned attachments, without marking read. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools and message-level tools while the title adds the date/unread filtering dimension.

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?

Provides strong operational guidance: date_from is inclusive, date_to exclusive, timezone requirements, pagination via next_cursor, and a caution against claiming completeness prematurely. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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