search_telegram_posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral constraint (free quota only) and a prerequisite (global search enabled), but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or what the quota restriction means in practice.

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 with no filler, and the key scoping constraint is front-loaded. It is tight, though the brevity comes at the cost of detail handled in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the enabled-global-search prerequisite is stated. However, the posts-versus-messages sibling ambiguity and the fully undocumented parameters leave gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 three parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not: query, limit, and cursor are entirely unexplained. Nothing indicates default page size, cursor pagination behavior, or query syntax.

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?

Clear verb 'Search' plus resource 'public channel posts', with a scoping constraint ('free quota only'). It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling search_telegram_messages, leaving the posts-vs-messages distinction to inference.

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?

Adds a precondition ('Requires global search to be enabled') that shapes when the call can succeed, but gives no guidance on choosing this over search_telegram_messages or search_telegram_channels. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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