search_telegram_messages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful bit of context ('allowed channel' scope) but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or rate/access limits implied by limit/before_id.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of the reason other dimensions are thin.

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 5-parameter, 0%-coverage search tool with a sibling that overlaps its purpose, this is inadequate. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the channel identifier format, query semantics, and pagination via before_id/limit are left entirely to inference.

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 0% across 5 parameters. The description only clarifies one parameter ('since is a timezone-aware publication date'), leaving query, channel, limit, and before_id completely undocumented in either the schema or the description.

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: 'Search an allowed channel's text posts.' This is a concrete retrievable action. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_telegram_posts, which appears to cover nearly the same ground, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

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 only guidance is the precondition 'an allowed channel,' which hints at an access constraint. There is no statement of when to use this over search_telegram_posts, read_telegram_channel, or search_telegram_channels, and no exclusions.

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