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

The description is a bare noun phrase and offers no information about side effects, read-only status, auth requirements, or how inputs are handled. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose any behavioral traits; note that schema parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' for some inputs, but the tool description itself does not say this.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words; the description is front-loaded and easy to parse, although it may be too terse to be useful.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no tool-level explanation of how inputs map to behavior, the description is grossly incomplete. There is no mention of expected inputs or outputs, so an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool.

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 per-parameter descriptions, so schema coverage is high. However, the tool description contributes nothing to parameter understanding and does not explain why a Git ref, city name, or JSON text are relevant to an HTTP status code catalog, leaving a semantic gap.

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' names a resource but lacks a verb indicating the tool's action. More critically, the input schema accepts a wide range of unrelated parameters (ref, city, json, path), so the description does not establish how these parameters relate to the stated catalog, making the purpose ambiguous and likely to mislead an agent.

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 or how it differs from siblings like fetch-status, normalize-url, or validate-json. The description provides no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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