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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing what the response includes (install commands, component counts, and the per-check pass/fail security result), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the tool's core purpose and packs the return-value details without padding. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

The tool is a simple single-parameter read, the safety profile is fully covered by annotations, and an output schema exists, so return values need no description. The only shortfall is the missing guidance on how get_plugin relates to verify_plugin for security-audit needs, but the definition is otherwise complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single id parameter is already documented in the schema with an example ('sql-safety-net'). The description only restates that the tool operates 'by its id', adding no new semantics over the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full details of a single Sigistry plugin by its id') and enumerates the return content (install commands, component counts, security-audit result). This clearly differentiates it from siblings list_categories and search_plugins, which operate at a different scope and grain.

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 implies usage context — you call this when you already have a plugin id and want full details — which is clear from 'by its id'. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, and the security-audit portion overlaps with the sibling verify_plugin without any guidance on which tool covers that need. Meaningful but implicit.

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