Channel Posts

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

Substantially exceeds the annotations (which only say readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false). It discloses credit consumption, the confirm=true requirement, that empty and terminal pages are not charged, that reactions and downloadable media URLs may be absent, and that read-like POSTs do not publish to social platforms.

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?

Two tightly packed paragraphs, front-loaded with what the tool returns before pagination and cost caveats. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the closing note about not publishing to social platforms is somewhat tangential to retrieval.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, pagination model, cost/pricing behavior, and data-availability caveats. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description still adds value by explaining cursor pagination direction ('previous page') and the credit/caching consequence of confirm, which the schema strings do not tie together.

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 and resource ('Retrieves one public web-preview page of Telegram posts') and enumerates the returned fields. It also clarifies scope by excluding private/invite-only channels and groups. However, it never names the adjacent siblings telegram_channel_details or telegram_post_details, so the agent must infer the boundary from scope wording alone.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: pass the returned cursor to fetch the previous page, omit it for latest posts, and the endpoint is unsupported for private/invite-only channels. Lacks an explicit 'use X instead when you want Y' routing statement against the sibling Telegram tools.

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