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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only describes the catalog as 'short' and about 'common HTTP status codes.' It does not disclose whether this is a read-only lookup, what the output shape is, whether inputs affect the result, or what side effects exist.

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 only one sentence and is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It gives a topic sentence without actionable detail, so while it is short, it does not fully earn 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 four optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides enough context to guess the domain but not enough for an agent to know how to call the tool, what response to expect, or how inputs influence behavior.

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 has 100% description coverage and clearly documents url, host, json, and zone. However, the tool description adds no information connecting these parameters to the status-code catalog, so the agent cannot determine which parameters, if any, should be supplied.

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, 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not use an operational verb or state what the tool does with its inputs. It identifies a topic, but not an action, and it does not clarify whether the tool returns definitions, filters a list, or performs a lookup.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings such as citation, normalize-url, or validate-json. The description also fails to mention whether any of the four optional inputs are relevant or how to invoke the catalog.

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