Telegram post

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds real value beyond them: a per-call cost of 1 credit with refunds for failures, and the constraint that this reads public channels only. It does not cover auth needs or rate limiting, which is why it is not 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?

The core identity, cost, and input rule are front-loaded in short lines, which is good structure. The trailing "Returns:" enumeration runs to roughly sixteen fields on a single line, which is dense but largely justified since there is no output schema to convey that information elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields and their nullability, and it discloses the credit cost and public-channel limitation. Remaining gaps are minor for a read-only lookup tool: failure behavior and explicit routing to sibling listing tools are absent.

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 100%, and each parameter already carries its own explanation and examples, so the description's restatement of the "one of url OR post OR username + id" rule duplicates the schema's own description field. Baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional syntax or format detail is added beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific resource and scope: "A single public Telegram channel message by link" with the data it carries (text, media, views, date, forward info, link preview, channel info). The word "single" implicitly separates it from the plural sibling telegram_posts, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied through the input constraint "Provide one of: `url` OR `post` OR `username` + `id`", which tells the agent how to satisfy the call but not when to choose this tool over telegram_posts or telegram_profile. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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