Get bounded Telegram media

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses transfer caps (2 MiB preview, 12 MiB full) and rejection categories (protected, self-destructing, secret, unsupported, oversized). This adds meaningful behavioral detail that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by essential limits and failure conditions. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Annotations and the output schema reduce the need to describe safety and return shape, and the description covers important size/rejection constraints. Still, the lack of sibling differentiation and thin chat_id/message_id semantics leave gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by linking 'preview' and 'full' to transfer caps and indicating media is anchored to a message. However, chat_id is never explained and message_id is only implied, leaving a clear gap for an agent interpreting the required parameters.

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 clearly: 'one explicitly anchored photo, PDF document, audio item, or video thumbnail.' This distinguishes the tool from sibling message/search/context tools by media-focused scope, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 'explicitly anchored' implies this tool is for media tied to a known chat_id and message_id, and the preview/full transfer limits add situational context. However, it never states when to prefer this over telegram_get_message or telegram_search_messages, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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