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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that download links appear only for listed plugins and that fields under "untrusted" are verbatim GitHub author content to be treated as data, not instructions. It does not cover not-found behavior, auth needs, or rate limits, keeping it below the top mark.

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 core action and key format, followed by two targeted caveats about return content. No sentence is padding; each adds scope or safety detail.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the lookup key, conditional return content, and a prompt-injection warning. It leaves the not-found/error path and whether unlisted plugins resolve at all unstated, which an agent calling with arbitrary ids would want.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single required parameter, and it does: it renders the id as an owner/repository slug, making the schema's regex pattern legible in plain language. It adds no guidance on case sensitivity or the 39/100-char limits encoded in the pattern.

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 ("Get details of a plugin") and constrains the lookup key to an id in owner/repository form, which reads clearly against the sibling search_plugins. It stops short of naming the sibling as the discovery path, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 implied: an agent learns it must already have a plugin id in owner/repository form to call this. There is no explicit when-to-use versus search_plugins, and no stated prerequisite about how to obtain an id or what happens if the id is unknown.

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