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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'fetched live' is a genuine and useful disclosure (results are real-time, not cached), and 'List' implies read-only. However, nothing is said about pagination, result limits, or rate limits, which matter for a live-fetched enumeration.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and a clarifying parenthetical second. No wasted words.

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 one-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and that data is live. It is slightly thin on result shape/pagination, but the tool's complexity is low enough that little more is needed.

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% with the single 'category' enum fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention filtering by category at all, adding no meaning beyond structured fields.

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') and resource ('togo plugin marketplace') and clarifies what the resource is ('installable capabilities'). It implicitly contrasts with the singular get_plugin sibling via 'List', but never names or disambiguates against search_docs or get_plugin explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' — an agent can infer this enumerates all plugins, but the description gives no condition for choosing it over get_plugin or search_docs, no prerequisites, and no scoping guidance.

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