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

The description only says it is a 'short catalog' and gives no behavioral details beyond that. The input schema reveals many parameters (url, city, feed, json, path) that seem unrelated to HTTP status codes, and the description does not explain their role or the side effects (e.g., validation, discarding). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose the relevant 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 fluff, and the core subject (HTTP status codes) is front-loaded. It is concise, though it may be under-specified for the surprising breadth of parameters in the schema.

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 schema contains seven heterogeneous parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) that are mostly described as 'discarded', a simple one-line description is inadequate. An agent cannot tell what the actual function is, how parameters relate to the catalog, or what the expected output looks like. The description is too sparse for the complexity hinted at by the schema.

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?

All seven parameters have descriptive text in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond a general reference to HTTP status codes. Since the schema descriptions are reasonably clear, the baseline of 3 applies; the description neither helps nor obstructs parameter usage.

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 identifies the tool as a catalog of common HTTP status codes, which is a clear resource plus implicitly a reference/listing action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch-status (which likely checks a live URL) by implying a static reference rather than a network operation.

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 siblings such as fetch-status, compatibility, or web-fetch. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer or guess.

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