telegram_mentions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: reading marks nothing as seen and the owner's phone badge is unchanged. It also explains why these counters are a distinct signal from plain unread, which aids correct invocation. Pagination/response shape is left to the schema, keeping this just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then routes to alternatives, then adds the signal distinction and read semantics — a logical order with no filler. The opening sentence is dense but every sentence carries distinct information, so it stays efficient.

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?

For a 9-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and behavioral effect, and even sketches the return content (who mentioned/replied and what they said; who reacted with which emoji). It does not spell out the response envelope or the separate next-offset reporting, a minor gap given the rich schema.

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 already documents all nine parameters, including the offset_id semantics and the chat/topic_id relationship. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 — the messages behind telegram_inbox's mention and reaction counters — and defines the two result classes (mentions/replies and reactions) precisely. It explicitly names the siblings it is not (telegram_inbox, telegram_message_reactions), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any 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 ('Use when the user asks where they were mentioned or which of their messages got a reaction') and when-not ('Do not use this for a ranked overview of every unread chat'), naming the correct alternatives for each case. Nothing is left to inference.

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