check_for_updates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses little beyond the target registry. It doesn't say whether this performs a network request, whether results are cached, or what the 'force' parameter changes about behavior. For a tool whose only parameter implies cache-bypass semantics, that gap matters.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and target with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing information noted elsewhere.

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 not be explained here. However, with no annotations and an undocumented 'force' parameter, an agent lacks enough behavioral context to call this correctly — it cannot tell what forcing does or what the call costs.

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 0% and the single parameter 'force' (boolean, default false) is never mentioned in the description. Since the schema provides no textual semantics either, the parameter's meaning is entirely undocumented — the description fails to compensate.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('PyPI for the latest version of food-mcp'), making the operation unambiguous. No sibling tool performs version checking, so the agent can identify it immediately from the name plus description.

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 invoke this tool or when not to. There is an implicit 'when you want to know if an update exists,' but no mention of context such as startup checks, cost of the network call, or interaction with the other food tools.

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