telegram_chat_read

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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile, yet the description adds non-obvious behavior: reading never marks the chat as read, backwards paging via before_id, topic interleaving when topic_id is omitted, and that include_read_state costs an extra call. These are exactly the traits an agent can't derive from structured fields.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose, then when-to-use, then routing. The only waste is the closing restatement 'Reading never marks anything as seen', which repeats the earlier 'Reading does not mark the chat read' sentence.

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, the description still enumerates the return contents (messages, attachment metadata, reaction counts, permalinks, read flags). For a 7-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: that a message link starts the page at that message, that omitting topic_id interleaves topics, and the extra-call cost of read-state. It reinforces rather than merely restates the parameter docs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetches ... messages') plus the scope ('one known chat', up to 500) and the payload contents. It explicitly distinguishes itself from telegram_chats and telegram_search, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('what was said in one known chat'), when-not-to-use ('Do not use this to find a chat by name'), and names the concrete alternatives (telegram_chats, telegram_search, telegram_plan_mark_read) with the condition selecting each.

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