ads_telegram_account_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does deliver two valuable facts: an auth/precondition requirement (Telegram Premium) and a safety claim (no messages are sent), which tells the agent this is read-only. It omits pagination, rate limits, and the fact that 'search' vs 'history' behavior depends on whether query is supplied, which is the main behavioral fork an agent needs.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the precondition and the read-only guarantee. No filler and nothing buried.

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 are no annotations and no output schema, and two of four parameters have no documentation anywhere. The description covers purpose, precondition, and non-mutation but leaves the history-vs-search mode switch and return shape undetermined, so an agent could call it correctly only by guessing.

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 50%: chat and since are documented in the schema, while limit and query are undocumented in both places. The description hints at the query/limit semantics via the phrase 'recent history or search' but never states that omitting query returns history, or what limit defaults to and caps at.

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 set (read recent history / search) against a specific resource (one Telegram chat) and names the transport (connected local GramJS/TDLib account). It is clear enough to distinguish from write-side siblings like ads_telegram_account_send or ads_telegram_chat_reply, but it does not name the closest read alternative, ads_telegram_public_posts_search, so the sibling boundary is left implicit.

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: 'one Telegram chat' signals single-chat scoped reads versus public search, and 'Requires Telegram Premium' implies a precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as ads_telegram_public_posts_search for cross-channel discovery.

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