search_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'curated channel cards', hinting at ranking but not explaining pagination, default limit, error handling, or the effect of the search_by_description flag. It does not state that the operation is read-only or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mentions the key filter types. It is appropriately concise without being under-specified, though it omits some operational details. The structure is efficient and not verbose.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the required query parameter, the limit parameter, the peer_type enum, or the search_by_description option. It also fails to note that category/language/country codes come from the list_* sibling tools. An agent would need to inspect the schema to understand these details, and the description provides insufficient context for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by listing filter types (category, language, country, type) which correspond to schema properties, but it does not explain any parameter further. Since the schema is thorough, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond that.

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 the tool searches Telegram channels by query with optional filters for category, language, country, and type. It distinguishes this from search_posts by explicitly focusing on channels and mentions the return of 'curated channel cards', giving a specific verb, resource, and result format.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_posts or get_channel. It does not state when to prefer this over a direct lookup or when to avoid it. No exclusions or alternative references are present, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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