ads_telegram_public_reply_list

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

With no annotations, the description does carry useful behavior: it reads a local audit table and explicitly guarantees 'nothing is sent', plus discloses the pending-first ordering. However it says nothing about pagination, limits, default status filtering, or what happens when limit is omitted, which matters for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key behavior front-loaded and no filler. It could be slightly expanded without losing efficiency, but nothing is wasted as written.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and four undocumented parameters, so the description must compensate and doesn't. An agent cannot tell page size behavior, status filtering semantics, or the shape of returned records from what is provided.

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 0% across four parameters, and the description explains none of them — no mention of limit, status enum values, project_id default, or telegram_chat_id filtering. The one hint ('pending items shown first') loosely relates to status but does not document the parameter.

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 ('List public Telegram replies and mentions') plus the data source ('saved in the local audit table'), which distinguishes it from the sync/upsert siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for live fetching, but the read-from-store framing is clear.

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 implied ('list saved items', implicitly instead of ads_telegram_public_reply_sync), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given. The agent must infer that this reads existing records rather than fetching new ones.

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