telemost_similar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is 'Paid per call in USDC from your wallet', which is not captured in annotations. It also explains the basis of similarity (topic and audience), enriching understanding beyond 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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first sentence states the core purpose and use cases, and the second adds cost information. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned. It implies a list of similar channels but does not specify output format, limits, or whether it returns names, IDs, or stats. Annotations cover safety, and the cost is mentioned, but the missing return details and parameter format reduce 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 schema has one required param 'channel' with 0% description coverage. The description implies 'channel' is the seed channel for finding similar ones, which adds some meaning. However, it does not specify expected format (e.g., channel ID, username) or any constraints, leaving a gap that could cause invocation errors.

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 function: 'find channels similar to a given one by topic and audience'. It specifies the resource (channels) and the action (find similar), and distinguishes it from siblings like telemost_search (general search) and telemost_channel_info (specific channel info) by focusing on similarity and competitor discovery.

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 context for when to use it: 'discover competitors, alternatives or expansion targets'. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to prefer a different tool, such as telemost_search for broader discovery. The mention of pricing via telemost_catalog is a cross-reference but not usage guidance.

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