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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the single most important behavioral fact: this tool does not itself create a plugin, it hands back a prefilled GitHub issue URL. It omits everything else an agent would want to know about a submission path - validation rules, duplicate handling, auth requirements, and whether any state changes server-side.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, outcome second. Nothing is padded and nothing needs to be moved.

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?

The return value is explained verbally despite there being no output schema, which covers the biggest hole for a URL-returning tool. But with 4 parameters, 3 of them required and undocumented in both schema and description, and no guidance on the category vocabulary, the definition is only adequate for correct invocation.

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 only 25% (only repo_url is documented, and generically as 'GitHub URL of the plugin repo'). The description adds no meaning for name, category, or description - notably it never says what category values are expected, despite category being free-form with no enum.

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+resource (submit a plugin) and scopes it to the togo marketplace, which is enough to separate it from the read-only siblings (get_plugin, list_plugins, search_docs). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the write/submit framing is unmistakable.

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?

There is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative. However, the second sentence ('Returns a prefilled GitHub issue URL') implies the actual usage pattern: the agent must surface that URL to the user rather than treating the call as a completed submission. That is meaningful implied guidance but not a stated policy.

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