telemost_ads_posts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it searches only the last 14 days (a time constraint), and it's paid per call in USDC, which is critical for the agent to know. The mention of 'creatives' clarifies return content. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause earns its place: purpose, data scope, recency limit, and cost model. No fluff or repetition of the schema.

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/read tool with good annotations, the description covers: what it does, freshness window, cost, and output type (creatives). It lacks explicit return structure, but no output schema is expected for such tools, and the description gives enough context for an agent to decide. The 14-day limit is a notable constraint. One gap is lack of clarification on how 'all' period works, but that's minor.

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%, so the description carries the burden for params. It mentions 'query' implicitly via 'discover ad posts' and 'what and where competitors advertised', but does not explicitly explain the 'query' param or the 'period' enum. The period values (7d, 14d, all) are self-explanatory from schema, but the description adds no details on formatting or semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's explicit enum for period.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: discovering Telegram ad posts and performing competitor analysis, with a specific verb ('discover') and resource ('ad posts on channels'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on ads and creatives, which none of the sibling names suggest.

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 provides context for when to use it: for ad intelligence and competitor analysis, searching posts from the last 14 days. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but its unique focus on ads vs. general post search (e.g., telemost_posts_search) makes the use case clear. The description could benefit from explicit exclusions but is strong enough.

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