Что Telegram знает о вебхуке

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly says no token or secret key is exposed, the address is shown without the key, and the output directly indicates whether the address matches what the panel expects. This is valuable safety-relevant context.

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 three sentences with no wasted words: the first sentence states what the tool returns, the second gives the diagnostic use case, and the third addresses security and output interpretation. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description compensates by clearly summarizing the retourned information: webhook URL, pending update count, last delivery error, and a match/mismatch signal against the panel's expected address. Combined with the read-only and idempotency annotations, nothing material is missing 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 opens with 'Отчёт самого Telegram' and enumerates the concrete outputs: target address for updates, number of updates waiting for delivery, and last delivery error. This clearly identifies a specific diagnostic check on the webhook resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bots_webhook_rotate or bots_journal.

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 an explicit trigger scenario: use this when a bot in webhook mode is silent even though the panel side looks healthy, and frames it as the only way to get Telegram's own explanation. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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