telegram_whois

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: identity is returned 'only', invite links are resolved via CheckChatInvite and 'never joined', and joining is framed as a write that goes through a plan. It doesn't cover pagination or account-resolution behavior, but that is minor against the annotation coverage.

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 return contract, then the usage trigger, then the exclusions. Every clause carries routing or behavioral weight, though the final invite-link sentence is slightly dense and could be trimmed without loss.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned identity fields. Combined with the usage routing and the write-vs-read distinction for invite links, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only edge behavior around unresolved targets is unstated.

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 all three params are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'shared groups for users' loosely maps to the common_chats parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Returns identity only: id, kind, handle, bot flag, and shared groups') and precisely enumerates the returned fields. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by naming telegram_plan_join_chat and telegram_chat_members as the wrong tools for adjacent intents.

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 triggers ('Use when the user gives a username, numeric id, or invite link and asks who or what it is') and explicit exclusions ('Do not use this to join the chat'), with named alternatives for each wrong path. 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.