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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data sources (WordPress.org, WPVulnerability), the scoring methodology (13 criteria across sécurité, maintenance, communauté, support) and the A-F grading scale, which tells the agent what kind of analysis backs the result.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and input forms before the return detail. Every clause carries information (inputs, scoring scale, data sources), though the enumeration of return fields runs long and partly duplicates the output schema.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with an output schema, annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies everything needed: input forms, scoring basis, data provenance and output shape. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a wordpress.org slug or a plugin name with examples. The description repeats that dual-input fact with parallel examples, adding confirmation but no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 and resource ('Évalue la fiabilité d'un plugin WordPress') and narrows scope to single-plugin scoring by slug or name, which cleanly separates it from the sibling 'comparer_plugins'. The enumerated output (score /100, note A-F, 13 criteria, vulnerabilities, verdict) makes the deliverable unambiguous.

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?

Implies usage by explaining the accepted inputs (wordpress.org slug or plugin name) and noting the same barème as the wpformation.com checker, but never states when to prefer this over siblings like comparer_plugins or what happens on an unknown plugin. Usage context is inferable rather than explicit.

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