Send rich message

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the description carries most of the burden. It contributes the non-obvious fact that sending is done by a separately configured bot, that chat_id must be shared with that bot, and the success response shape ({sent, id, chat_id, type}). It does not explain failure modes or rate limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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-loads the core purpose and the send_message alternative, then tacks on the bot constraint, success shape, and docs link. Dense but every clause earns its place; only the trailing documentation URL is dispensable.

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?

An output schema exists, so the explicit success shape is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the description still covers the key operational constraint (bot-shared chat). The only gap is a mild conflict with the schema, which lists 'me' for Saved Messages while the description warns against it.

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, but the description adds a real constraint not present in the schema: the bot-shared-chat requirement for chat_id. This meaningfully narrows how the parameter may be used, going beyond the schema's own description.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (send markdown as a Telegram Rich Message) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling send_message, even naming the API (Bot API 10.1 sendRichMessage). An agent can tell it apart from send_message without opening either 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?

Explicitly states when to prefer this over send_message (content containing markdown tables, headings, or structured report layout) and adds a routing constraint that chat_id must be a chat shared with the separately configured bot. This is precisely the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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