Search all Telegram cloud chats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It meaningfully discloses the search scope and the secret-chat exclusion, which goes beyond what annotations would already state. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (cursor), result ordering, or auth-related limits on 'accessible' cloud history.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the core action, scope, and the most important exclusion with zero waste. Every clause 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 paginated search tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: what the return format is, how cursor pagination works, and what 'accessible' means in practice. The core intent is clear, but an agent cannot fully anticipate call behavior from this description alone.

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?

The input schema provides only titles, types, and constraints with no property descriptions, so semantic coverage is low. The description does not compensate by explaining the query format or the meaning of limit and cursor; an agent can only guess that query is the search string and cursor is for pagination.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('accessible cloud history across all chat lists'), and a key scope exclusion ('secret chats are excluded'), which helps distinguish it from secret-chat or single-chat search tools. It stops short of a 5 because 'accessible' is vague and no alternative sibling is explicitly referenced.

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 this tool searches across all chat lists, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion beyond secret chats. An agent must infer the appropriate context.

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