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

The description does not disclose whether the tool performs network requests, returns a static list, or has side effects, and no annotations exist to cover the safety profile. The schema's parameter descriptions mention that some values are 'discarded', which hints at behavior, but the main description itself carries too little behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. A single sentence saying 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' does not earn its place because it omits essential guidance about the confusing input schema and the tool's actual behavior.

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?

With seven optional input parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what inputs are expected, how they map to status codes, what the returned catalog looks like, or when an agent should invoke this tool at all.

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 already describes every parameter in individual property descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain why 'ref', 'city', 'feed', or 'path' matter for a catalog of HTTP status codes, leaving a semantic mismatch.

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 resource (common HTTP status codes) and implies the tool returns a catalog, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a clear action, and it does not explain how the seven heterogeneous input parameters relate to that catalog. It also fails to differentiate the tool from siblings like fetch-status, which likely deals with HTTP statuses more directly.

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 such as fetch-status or other shape/validation tools. The one sentence describes what the tool is, not the conditions under which an agent should select it, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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