telemost_channel_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds important economic behavior: 'Paid per call in USDC from your wallet (see telemost_catalog for the price),' which is beyond the annotations. 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?

The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the core function and data fields, the second gives use cases and cost. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the returned fields, which addresses return value expectations. It also covers cost and use cases. However, it omits potential error conditions or parameter effects (e.g., how 'region' changes results), leaving minor gaps for a simple tool.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'channel' or 'region' parameters. While 'channel' is intuitive and 'region' has an enum, the description does not clarify what 'region' affects or the expected format of 'channel', leaving the agent to infer semantics from field names alone.

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 explicitly states the tool provides 'Telegram channel analytics and profile data' and enumerates the specific fields returned: 'title, description, subscribers, category, country, language, links and verified flag.' It further clarifies use cases ('Vet a channel, enrich a dataset, or look up channel data in one call'), making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like telemost_stats_engagement or telemost_search.

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 clear usage contexts ('Vet a channel, enrich a dataset, or look up channel data in one call') and implies this is the all-in-one channel info tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for specific use cases, but the detailed field list allows an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate versus siblings like telemost_stats_channel.

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