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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations by disclosing that verification runs entirely locally, the plugin code never leaves the user's machine, and the server performs no computation. It also clarifies that the tool returns a recipe to follow rather than performing the verification itself, which is a crucial behavioral caveat.

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 detailed but efficient: it states the purpose, enumerates the checks, explains the privacy model, and gives usage instructions without redundancy. The important behavioral facts are front-loaded before the longer list of checks.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to call it, what steps to follow afterward, and what privacy/execution behavior to expect. The existence of an output schema covers return-value details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents pluginPath as an optional local path used to fill in the run command. The description reinforces this by referring to running the script against the plugin directory, but it adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 leads with a specific action ('Get the recipe to run the Sigistry verification methodology') tied to a clear resource (verifying a Claude Code plugin before publishing). It distinguishes itself from sibling lookup/search tools by focusing on the pre-publish verification workflow rather than fetching or searching plugin data.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to call it: 'Call this when the user wants their plugin or skill checked.' It also gives follow-up steps the agent should relay. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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