telegram_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful traits — the output is a 'safe, redacted snapshot' that does not expose secrets or identity values — which is genuine value. But it never explicitly states that the operation is read-only with no side effects, nor any auth requirement, leaving the mutation question to be inferred from 'Reports'.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and the payload, with no redundant restatement of the tool name. Nothing wasted.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth about what comes back; it names three high-level facets (snapshot, reauth state, runtime health) but not their shape or contents. It also fails to differentiate itself from telegram_health, which is the biggest completeness gap for an agent choosing among siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no input is needed and focuses on what is returned instead.

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 (reports) and a specific resource (redacted snapshot, reauth state, runtime health of the Telegram user account), which is much clearer than the bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling telegram_health, which by name covers overlapping 'runtime health' territory, leaving the agent to guess which one 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The overlap with telegram_health is a real ambiguity the description does nothing to resolve, so the agent must infer selection from tool names alone.

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