Agency Bot

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, while the description adds useful specifics: null when no bot is registered, the token is never returned, and a wallet signature is required. It does not explain rate limits or whether timeFilterBy affects all statistics, so it stops short of maximum.

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 resource and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by concise null, token, and auth notes. 'Read-only' repeats the annotation and is slightly redundant, but the description remains tight overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in full. It still covers the key operational facts an agent needs: wallet-signature requirement, null-bot case, and non-disclosure of the bot token.

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% and the sole parameter's enum is documented in the schema. The description never mentions timeFilterBy or how the statistics window changes the returned data, so the schema does the parameter work.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and resource 'logged-in user's Telegram agency bot (resale bot)' and enumerates the returned fields. No sibling tool covers this resource, so the purpose is unambiguous without needing sibling differentiation.

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?

Clarifies that it reads the logged-in user's own agency bot and notes the wallet-signature identity prerequisite. There are no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives, but no sibling overlaps enough to require them.

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