social_telegram

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as data returned, authentication requirements, rate limits, or destructive potential. This is a critical omission for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 extremely short (pricing line + API URL), which is concise but at the expense of necessary information. It fits the structure of minimal descriptions but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what data is returned, how to interpret results, or provide usage examples. The API endpoint might offer documentation, but the description should be self-sufficient.

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?

Although the schema covers the single parameter 'query' with description '搜索关键词' (search keyword), the tool description itself does not mention parameters or provide any additional context. It does not connect the parameter to the tool's behavior, leaving the agent without clarity on how to use 'query' effectively.

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 only says 'Telegram数据' (Telegram data), which is vague and does not specify what action (search, retrieve, etc.) the tool performs. It lacks a clear verb and resource definition, making it hard to distinguish from sibling social tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like social_discord or social_twitter. The description provides no context for appropriate use, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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