Search public Telegram channel posts after consent

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

Annotations cover openWorld and non-idempotency, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: one native search per call, quota consumption of an attempt, cursor continuations being free, 'Unavailable is not an empty success'. These are genuine behavioral disclosures not derivable from the annotations. It falls short of 5 only because return shape itself is left to the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then dense but largely load-bearing rules for a genuinely complex consent workflow. Slightly over-packed and could separate the safety constraints from the cursor semantics more clearly, but no sentence is obviously wasted.

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 mutation-adjacent, quota-consuming, consent-gated tool, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, token freshness, and cursor behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The main omission is any guidance on the `limit` parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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 does most of the compensating: it defines user_confirmed (true only after explicit approval of this exact query), confirmation_token (must be the paired fresh token), and cursor (a valid next_cursor continues the same approved query for free). The required query is self-evident, but `limit` is never addressed, leaving one of five parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (public-channel search / public Telegram channel posts) and immediately scopes it against sibling behaviors by contrasting it with 'ordinary account-history search'. An agent can distinguish this from telegram_search_messages and telegram_search_chat_messages without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites and ordering: run account-history search first, then telegram_get_public_search_quota, explain quota/consumption/scope, ask and WAIT. It also states exclusions plainly ('No joins, read-state changes or media downloads'; 'Never offer or spend Stars'). This is a near-complete when-to-use / when-not-to-use contract.

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