telegram_get_bot_info

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that it returns a JSON User object, which clarifies the output. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, so no contradiction. The description could mention that no side effects occur, but the annotations cover that.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second explains utility and return format.

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?

Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It names the fields returned (name, username, capabilities) and states the output format (JSON User object). No additional information is needed for this simple read-only tool.

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 has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none. It correctly mentions no arguments required.

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 clearly states 'Get information about the configured bot (name, username, capabilities)' and highlights its utility for verifying token validity and bot identity, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions like sending messages or deleting messages.

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 tells when to use the tool ('verify the bot token is valid and check bot identity'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternative uses, but for a simple informational tool, this is adequate.

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