Get a Telegram message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the message must be 'available to the linked Telegram account' (implying access constraints) and limits to text or voice/video-note messages. It doesn't reveal error behavior or format, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and scope immediately. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. Every word contributes 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 simplicity, an output schema exists (covering return values), and annotations handle safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter explanation, and it doesn't mention any prerequisites or limitations beyond 'available to the linked account.' For a minimal retrieval tool, it is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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% and the description provides no information about chat_id or message_id beyond their titles. It doesn't explain what a chat ID represents, how to obtain it, or any constraints. With no coverage in the schema and no compensation in the description, the agent is left without semantic understanding of the 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('one text or voice/video-note message'), plus the scope ('available to the linked Telegram account'). It implies direct retrieval by ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like history or search, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear and specific enough for an agent to know what it does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state that it should be used when a specific message_id is known, or mention any context that would help an agent choose between this and get_chat_history or search_messages. There is no explicit when/when-not information, so the agent must infer usage from the parameters.

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