ads_telegram_public_posts_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses a Premium account requirement, a free daily quota that is consumed first, and a hard guarantee that Stars are never spent without explicit opt-in. Only the response shape and per-search cost magnitude are left unstated.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then prerequisite, then cost behavior. No filler or repetition; slightly more compact phrasing of the quota/payment rules would make it ideal.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description omits what a result actually contains (post text, channel identity, pagination, ordering) and how the free quota is consumed per call. Auth and cost concerns are covered, but an agent cannot predict the return payload from the definition.

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%: max_stars and confirm_paid are already documented in the schema, and the description usefully ties them together as a joint precondition for payment. However, the query and limit parameters remain undocumented in both places, and the description adds no syntax, format, or pagination semantics for them.

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 and resource ('Search public Telegram channel posts globally by full-text query'), which is enough to separate it from sibling tools like ads_telegram_account_search or ads_telegram_ai_search_query_list. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling as the alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 description gives a concrete prerequisite (Telegram Premium) and a gating condition for the paid path (confirm_paid=true plus sufficient max_stars), both of which guide invocation. It never says when to prefer this tool over adjacent search/listing siblings, so guidance is implied rather than comparative.

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