Telegram channel profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns with this by using 'look up' with no mutation implied. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: only public channels are readable, private channels are not, and it returns exact subscriber counts plus activity cadence. It also implies the tool may surface stale/inactive channels, which is valuable warning behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and deliverables, and the second sentence gives practical use cases with a memorable example. Every sentence earns its place, and the stale-channel warning is compact yet highly informative.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job listing the expected output fields and the tool's key limitation (public channels only). It covers purpose, return contents, usage context, and a failure mode. It does not mention output shape or the extra API call cost for cadence, but those are covered by the schema and are not severe omissions.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters, including the channel handle format, the format enum, and the cadence boolean. The description adds minor reinforcement by mentioning 'how often it posts' and 'public Telegram channel', but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Look up a public Telegram channel') and lists the exact fields returned: title, description, subscriber count, creation date, verification/scam flags, and posting frequency. It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings, telegram_similar_channels or telegram_search_channels, so an agent must infer that this is for known handles rather than discovery or similarity.

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 gives explicit use cases: checking whether a channel is real, how large it is, and whether it is still active, including a concrete warning about dead channels with large subscriber counts. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not state when to prefer the sibling tools or explicitly exclude search/similarity scenarios.

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