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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states the three possible decision outcomes, mentions a suggested backoff schedule, and discloses the per-call cost. It does not explicitly say the tool is side-effect-free or describe the response shape in detail, but the advisory nature is clear.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: it states the decision, lists the three outcomes, notes the backoff schedule, and includes the price. Every clause adds useful information.

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 two-parameter advisory tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: it explains the decision categories and that a backoff schedule is included. The main gap is not explaining how the idempotent input influences the recommendation, though the schema does define that parameter.

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 50%; the description clarifies that 'code' is a status code, but the 'idempotent' parameter is only documented in the schema. The description does not explain how idempotency changes the advice, which is central to interpreting that parameter.

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: decide how a client should react to a status code, with three named reaction types. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like http_status or status_for_situation, which also concern status codes.

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 phrase 'Decide how a client should react to a status code' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no named alternative tools. An agent can infer the context but must reason about sibling selection on its own.

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