ads_telegram_ai_search_run_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver useful behavior: 'append-only', 'read-only', and 'never contacts Telegram' tell the agent this has no external side effects. It stops short of ordering, pagination depth, or truncation behavior for what could be a large history.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler: verb, resource, contents, and the safety qualifier all land immediately. Nothing is redundant.

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?

Given no output schema, telling the agent the record contents (status, quota, result counters) is genuinely valuable. But with 5 undocumented optional params and no annotation coverage, the description leaves filtering, default limit, and result ordering unspecified.

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 0% and five parameters (limit, source, status, query_id, project_id) are undocumented. The description's mention of 'source/scope, status, quota and result counters' reads as returned fields rather than filters, so it adds almost no meaning about how to constrain the query.

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 ('List') and resource ('append-only history of Telegram AI searches'), plus the record fields returned. It implies a distinction from the sibling ads_telegram_ai_search_query_list but never names it, so the agent has to infer which list is which.

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?

The read-only framing implies it's for inspection/history review, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no named alternative (query_list, query_upsert), and no stated prerequisites. Usage is inference-only.

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