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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does useful work: it states that only plugins whose latest checked release passed automated checks are returned, and it flags untrusted GitHub-authored fields as data rather than instructions. It does not cover pagination, result limits, sorting, or authentication behavior.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a filtering constraint and a security warning. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 search tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the definition covers source, filtering, and untrusted data handling. It still omits return shape, result limits, pagination, and parameter semantics, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 33%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented os and category parameters. It gives no parameter-level meaning beyond the general search purpose, leaving the schema mostly on its own.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: searching third-party OBS Studio plugins listed in Plugin Soko-kun. It clearly distinguishes a search operation from a detail-fetching sibling, though it does not explicitly mention get_plugin or explain the division of labor.

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 by 'Search' and by the filtering condition, so an agent can infer this is for discovery rather than plugin details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_plugin, nor when not to use it.

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