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

No annotations are provided, so behavioral disclosure falls entirely on the description. It merely says 'catalog' and doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, what the output contains, or how inputs are handled. The schema hints at discarded inputs, but the description itself doesn't communicate 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?

The description is very short and not bloated, but it is under-specified: a single clause acts more like a title or label than a useful tool description. For a tool with seven parameters and no output schema, this is insufficiently sized rather than appropriately 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?

The definition lacks essential context: it does not explain what the tool returns, how to invoke it for a typical request, or which parameters are relevant. With no annotations and no output schema, the description alone is too incomplete for an agent to confidently select and use the 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?

All seven parameters have descriptions in the input schema, including notes like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access,' so the schema already carries the parameter-semantics load. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but full schema coverage justifies the baseline score.

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 domain ('common HTTP status codes') and positions the tool as a short catalog, so an agent can grasp the general topic. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an actionable statement, and it doesn't explain how the seven unrelated-looking parameters (URL, city, feed, JSON, path, etc.) relate to that catalog.

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 on when to call this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status, validate-json, or normalize-url. The description gives no context about the problem it solves or any exclusions.

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