Get bounded Telegram message context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the bounded-count behavior and the 'supported messages' qualifier, but does not clarify what 'supported' means, how ordering works, or whether the anchor itself is included.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the core action, object, and bound are all front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, read-only, idempotent fetch, the description plus schema covers required IDs, defaults, limits, and safety. The undefined 'supported messages' phrase and lack of sibling differentiation prevent a perfect score, but the output schema and annotations fill in much of the remaining context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'at most five on each side' to the before/after parameters and 'anchor' to message_id, but it does not mention chat_id, defaults, or the meaning of 'supported messages'. It provides partial 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('messages on each side of an anchor') with a clear bound ('at most five'). It is distinct from siblings like telegram_get_message and telegram_get_chat_history, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'around an anchor' implies this tool is for fetching context around a specific message, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent would have to infer its relationship to telegram_get_message_thread or telegram_get_chat_history.

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