Telegram Notification Settings

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, yet the description still adds two non-obvious behaviors: auth needs a wallet signature identity and `setting` is null when Telegram is not linked. That null-return contract is exactly the kind of thing structured fields do not convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the null case and auth requirement. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 return values need no explanation, yet the description helpfully previews the seller/buyer field groups and the null case. Auth requirement plus null semantics round out everything needed to call a parameterless read correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of `setting` refers to the response shape rather than an input, which is mildly confusing in a parameter context but harmless.

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?

Specific verb (Read) plus precise resource (Telegram alert filters of the logged-in user), and it enumerates the two filter groups covered. It never names the write counterpart tronsave_update_telegram_notify_setting or tronsave_list_notifications, so sibling routing depends on the tool name rather than the text.

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?

"Requires a wallet signature identity" establishes a prerequisite, and "read-only" implies this is the inspection step. However, it never says when to choose this over tronsave_update_telegram_notify_setting or tronsave_list_notifications, and offers no exclusions.

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