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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the exact decision logic, the meaning of each verdict including nuanced cases like 'too-new' and 'insufficient-data', and the error behavior for out-of-scope plugins. It also clarifies that this reports community reports rather than security findings. While annotations already mark the tool as non-destructive and idempotent, the description adds meaningful behavioral context about data sources and interpretation.

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 long but every sentence contributes necessary information: the core question, the five verdicts, when to use it, what it is not, scope exclusions, and error behavior. The verdict list is front-loaded and logically ordered. It could be slightly tighter, but the density is justified given the tool's nuance.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description still covers all essential operational context: when to use, what data is considered, how to interpret the five results, what is out of scope, and what happens for unsupported plugins. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result meaningfully.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with clear examples and types, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that the version must be 'exact' and the plugin must be a wordpress.org slug, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with a concrete question: 'is it safe to update this WordPress plugin to this version right now?' and specifies the resource (a WordPress plugin release) and action (counts support-forum threads and returns one of five verdicts). It fully distinguishes itself from the sibling by framing this as a single-release check and even noting when an error is returned for out-of-coverage plugins.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is present: 'Use it before applying a plugin update, or when someone asks whether a specific version broke anything.' It also gives clear exclusions: it is not a security advisory or CVE lookup, applies only to wordpress.org plugins, excludes premium/paid plugins and themes, and only covers the most-installed plugins. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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