telegram_messages_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states that the operation is read-only and returns results in reverse-chronological order, but it omits permissions/auth needs, pagination behavior, rate limits, how scope and chat_id interact, and what the response contains. That is too thin for a 10-parameter search tool with no 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?

The description is two compact sentences with no wasted wording. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and 'Read only' is valuable because no annotations are provided.

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?

This is a complex search tool with 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description gives only the broad purpose, scope, ordering, and read-only status, but does not explain parameter relationships, pagination, filtering, date semantics, or expected results. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 10 parameters. It only adds meaning to scope by saying 'specific chat or across the entire account,' and vaguely gestures at ordering. It does not explain query, filter, chat_id, cursor, min_date/max_date, sender_user_id, limit, or chat_list, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: searches messages. It also clarifies scope (specific chat vs entire account) and ordering (reverse-chronological), which goes beyond a tautological restatement. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like telegram_public_search or telegram_messages_get, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 description implies the tool is used when searching within a chat or account, but it does not say when to choose it over telegram_public_search, telegram_messages_get, or telegram_inbox. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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