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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Short catalog' implies a passive, read-only reference, but it does not disclose whether parameters are ignored, how results are returned, or whether any network/disk access occurs. The schema hints that many inputs are 'discarded,' but the description itself adds little behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded, efficient sentence with no filler. It communicates the core identity of the tool immediately and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only offers a one-line purpose. It does not explain the return format, how parameters affect output, or why such varied parameters exist for a status-code catalog, so an agent has to guess at invocation semantics.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description does not mention the parameters. The parameter descriptions are individually explicit, but they are not tied back to the catalog concept, leaving ambiguous how inputs like ref, json, or website relate to HTTP status codes.

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 says the tool provides 'a short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which clearly identifies the resource and content domain. It lacks an explicit verb, but the noun 'catalog' still conveys that this is a reference/list tool and distinguishes it from siblings like fetch-status.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Despite sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, the description never explains when an agent should choose the catalog instead of a live status check.

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