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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a starting point that yields a rowid, but the rest largely restates how to fill parameters rather than adding deeper behavioral context (e.g. pagination or result shape).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the what and scope, then the how and the payoff (pluginId). No waste.

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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations, the definition covers what it returns (rowid) and how to call it. Without an output schema, it could say slightly more about result shape, but it is essentially complete.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates filter=getAllPlugins and identifier=orgId, adding little beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 applies when 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 (List) plus resource (viaSocket Developer Hub plugins/apps) and scope (org owns), and clarifies the output is a pluginId/rowid. An agent can tell this apart from sibling tools like list_actions_and_triggers or get_plugin_analytics without opening the schema.

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?

'Start here to find a pluginId (rowid)' gives clear entry-point context and the downstream purpose of the call. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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