List linked Telegram chats

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantive behavioral context by defining disabled_reason values and explaining that no notifications are delivered to those chats and how the state is resolved. It does not cover pagination or whether disabled chats are still returned, leaving one small gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and then the meaning of disabled_reason. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place; only minor tightening is possible.

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 and no parameters, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so by listing the key fields and enumerating every disabled_reason value. It lacks detail on ordering, pagination, or result size, which for an openWorld list call is the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so parameter semantics is a baseline case. The description appropriately spends no space on parameters and instead documents the response fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Returns all Telegram personal accounts and group chats linked to the Statuser account") and enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly distinguishes itself from max_linked_list by scope, but never names siblings like telegram_set_topic, so it stops short of explicit differentiation.

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?

Read-only listing usage is implied by "Returns all ... linked", but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus telegram_set_topic or max_linked_list. No preconditions or exclusions are given.

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