telegram_send_location

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no extra behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, idempotency) beyond the annotation baseline, which is acceptable.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections are clear but slightly verbose for the minimal information. No redundant sentences.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the return value. It explains the input parameters sufficiently for a simple location tool, but lacks broader context like authentication requirements or error handling specifics.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. It lists parameter names (chat_id, latitude, longitude) but adds no meaning beyond the schema field titles and descriptions that already exist. For example, it doesn't explain coordinate formats or chat identifier 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?

The description clearly states 'Send a geographic location (map pin) to a Telegram chat' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling send tools (e.g., send_message, send_photo) by highlighting the location aspect, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other send tools (e.g., send_message for text, send_photo for images). The description lacks exclusion criteria or context about prerequisites like bot permissions.

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