Search the plugin repository

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that the tool queries WordPress.org rather than the local site and by listing the returned data fields. It does not mention rate limits or network failure behavior, but the added scope and return information exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 sentences with no fluff: the first identifies the action and target, the second lists useful return fields, and the third clarifies the external scope. The most important differentiator ('queries WordPress.org, not your site') is placed at the end but is still crisp and memorable.

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 search tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the key missing context: the external data source, the purpose, and the kind of results returned. There is no output schema, so the explicit return-field list partially compensates. It could mention pagination or ordering, but the schema already documents page and per_page.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it does clarify the purpose of the results, which indirectly explains why 'search', 'page', and 'per_page' matter for repository discovery.

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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('public WordPress.org plugin repository'), and clearly distinguishes this from site-scoped operations. It also enumerates what the tool returns (slug, rating, install count, last-updated date, compatibility), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use it: when searching the public WordPress.org repository and when assessing plugin maintenance before install. It also distinguishes it from site-local tools with 'This queries WordPress.org, not your site,' though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like search_themes or list_plugins.

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