telemost_search

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the key cost fact ('Paid per call in USDC from your wallet') and clarifies it only covers public content. It doesn't contradict 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 declares the core purpose, the second adds use cases and pricing. No filler words; every sentence earns its place.

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 exists, and the description doesn't describe the return format or how results are structured. It also doesn't explain how scope/region filters work, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names. However, the payment note and public-scope clarification provide useful operational context, giving partial completeness.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters; schema coverage is 0%. While the schema shows enums for scope and region, the description adds no meaning to query, limit, scope, or region, so it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 opens with 'Telegram search and discovery' and specifies 'find public Telegram channels, groups and posts by keyword', giving a clear verb+resource+scope. It differentiates from siblings like telemost_posts_search by covering all content types.

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?

It provides practical use cases: 'Discover sources, communities, competitors or content on any topic.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.

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