telemost_entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it notes the tool is paid per call in USDC (pointing to telemost_catalog for pricing) and clarifies that it extracts formatting-level entities rather than semantic NER. This provides behavioral insight not captured by the 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 reasonably concise, leading with a clear purpose statement and then detailing entity types and distinctive traits. The phrase 'at scale' adds little value, but overall the text is efficient and front-loaded without excessive fluff.

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 the simple one-parameter schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, entity types, and cost, which is adequate. However, it omits any information about the response format or output structure (no output schema exists), and 'recent posts' is vague regarding time range or pagination. Moderate completeness for a straightforward extraction 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?

The schema has only one parameter ('source' as a string) with zero description coverage. The description implies that 'source' refers to a channel (e.g., 'from a channel's recent posts'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify the expected format (like username, URL, or ID), leaving some ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('pull') and resource ('structured entities from a channel's recent posts'), enumerating the entity types (links, mentions, hashtags, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from semantic NER and related tools by specifying 'Formatting-level entities, not semantic NER', which helps separate it from sibling analytics tools.

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 implies usage by describing the extraction task, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like telemost_messages or telemost_posts_search. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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