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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only; changes nothing' largely restates structured data. The one genuine addition is the money-unit convention (integer minor units/cents), which helps interpret returned values.

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 front-loaded sentences with no padding. One sentence, 'Read-only; changes nothing', is somewhat redundant with the annotations, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what comes back; it largely defers that to the schema's own description field (plugin on/off states, settings with value/type/choices, redacted secrets). For a zero-parameter read tool that is workable but not fully self-contained.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to clarify and the description correctly stays out of that space.

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?

Names a specific resource ('the shop's plugins and their settings') and its read-only nature, which separates it from mutating siblings like plugins_set_enabled and plugins_settings. The verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated, and sibling differentiation is indirect.

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?

'Read-only; changes nothing' hints at inspection usage but never states when to choose this over plugins_settings or plugins_set_enabled. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no exclusions are given.

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