Get bounded Telegram message context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it limits to text messages, caps at five per side, and centers on an anchor message. It does not mention pagination or what happens if fewer messages exist, but the bounded nature is clearly disclosed.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and scope, and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the annotations cover safety, and the output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that only text messages are returned (which it does) and clarify the behavior of before/after defaults, but the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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 explains the 'before' and 'after' concept implicitly ('on each side of an anchor') and the cap of five, which maps to the maximum constraints in the schema. However, it does not explicitly explain the 'before' and 'after' parameters or the chat_id/message_id requirements beyond what the schema already shows. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for zero schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('bounded Telegram message context'), and clarifies the scope ('at most five text messages on each side of an anchor'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like telegram_get_message or telegram_search_messages.

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 usage: it fetches surrounding context around an anchor message, which is distinct from searching or fetching a single message. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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