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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Calling it a 'short catalog' implies a read-only lookup, but it does not state whether the tool returns a list, accepts a status code parameter, or has any side effects. The input schema lists several parameters that seem unrelated to HTTP status codes, further muddying the behavior.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified: it leaves out important context about how the tool works and what it expects, making it more terse than genuinely concise.

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 tool has seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is inadequate. The parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) do not obviously map to 'HTTP status codes,' so an agent cannot confidently determine how to invoke the tool or interpret its result.

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 schema provides descriptions for all seven parameters, such as 'discarded after the shape check' and 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' so the schema already covers parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and it does not explain how these parameters relate to the catalog of 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 clearly identifies the tool as a catalog of common HTTP status codes, so an agent can infer that it provides reference information about status codes. However, it lacks a explicit verb like 'returns' or 'looks up,' and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or a preferred context, leaving the agent to guess whether status-catalog or a sibling like fetch-status is the right choice.

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