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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what details are returned (install commands, component counts, security-audit result) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error cases or lookup semantics. No contradiction exists.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the full details of a single Sigistry plugin by its id') and then adds valuable specifics. Every clause earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No critical contextual gap is apparent.

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 required 'id' parameter is described with an example ('sql-safety-net'). The description only restates that lookup is by id, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full details of a single Sigistry plugin by its id.' It also lists concrete contents (install commands, component counts, security-audit result), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill and search_plugins.

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 clearly establishes the context: use this tool when you already have a plugin id and need full details for that single plugin. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the id-based single-item purpose is evident enough to guide selection.

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