getUserChatBoosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the admin-rights requirement and the success return type ('Returns a UserChatBoosts object on success'). However, it does not mention failure behavior (e.g., insufficient rights or a user with no boosts) or any limits; acceptable but not rich for a read-only getter.

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 with no filler. The first names the action, the second adds the prerequisite and return type. Every element earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the permission prerequisite and the success return object, and the schema covers both parameters fully. The only gap is edge-case/error behavior, which is minor for this tool's simplicity.

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%: chat_id and user_id are both fully documented with formats and semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the list of boosts added to a chat by a user.' This precisely scopes the operation and distinguishes it from all siblings; no other tool in the sibling list targets chat boosts (e.g., getChatGifts is about gifts, not boosts).

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 provides a clear usage prerequisite: 'Requires administrator rights in the chat,' which tells the agent when the call is permissible. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set contains no competing boost-query tool, so explicit routing guidance is unnecessary.

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