telegram_get_updates

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

Discloses the most important non-obvious trait: a default call acknowledges (consumes) unseen updates, so an agent knows repeat calls can lose messages, and offset: 0 is the escape hatch. This adds genuine value beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations. Minor tension: 'acknowledged' implies a cursor-advancing side effect that readOnlyHint=true does not advertise, but the description is the more accurate of the two and no return/blocking behavior is described.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler. The default/consumption behavior leads, and the offset: 0 workaround follows immediately where it is needed.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description says nothing about what an 'update' contains or how results are shaped, which an agent needs in order to parse the response. For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema fetch tool with annotations present, the description is adequate but leaves that gap open.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by adding offset semantics the schema lacks (offset: 0 re-reads the backlog, vs. omitting it to continue). limit and timeout get no narrative treatment, but their schema descriptions are already sufficient.

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 concrete verb+resource ("Fetch recent incoming messages") that an agent can immediately map to an operation, and it is implicitly the only read-side tool among send/download siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the inbox/polling role explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 usable operating context: default behavior returns only unseen updates, and offset: 0 forces a backlog re-read. That is a real when-to-use signal, though it never states when NOT to call it (e.g., rate limits, or that repeated default calls advance the cursor past messages).

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