Check for update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is advisory-only ('Suggest only, never install'), which tells the agent not to chain into an install action.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the constraint follows. The trailing 'Returns current, latest, command, run_in' is largely redundant given a dedicated output schema exists, so it is slightly less than maximally efficient.

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 trivial read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description is nearly sufficient. The only material omission is an explanation of the 'force' flag, which is undocumented everywhere.

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 single parameter 'force' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent cannot tell whether it bypasses a cache, forces a network re-check, or changes the response. This is the one place where the description needed to compensate for the schema and did not.

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 and resource: 'Check GitHub for a newer telegram-ads-mcp release.' No sibling in the list performs this function, so the agent can distinguish it immediately. The scope (GitHub releases of this specific package) is unambiguous.

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?

'Use when the user asks about updates' gives an explicit trigger condition, and 'Suggest only, never install' further constrains behavior at the point of use. There is no alternative tool to route to, so the lack of named alternatives is not a real gap.

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