get_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it causes no side effects or mention any access requirements or error behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence states the core purpose and returned fields, and a second sentence directs the user to the relevant alternative for reach/ERR. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently outlines the returned profile fields and points to the alternate tool for different metrics. It could mention whether more profile fields exist, but current coverage is adequate for the likely use case.

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 only parameter, channel_id, is already fully described in the input schema as accepting @username, t.me link, or TGStat channel ID. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Telegram channel's profile'), and enumerates key profile attributes (subscribers, category, ci_index, RKN verification). It also distinguishes itself from get_channel_stats by noting that reach/ERR belong there.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use get_channel_stats for reach/ERR, giving a clear alternative for a likely overlapping need. It does not address every sibling tool, but the primary alternative is covered.

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