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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'short catalog of common HTTP status codes' without disclosing whether this is a static read-only lookup, whether inputs are required, whether network access occurs, or what side effects might happen.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it is so underspecified that the brevity sacrifices essential clarity; it is more minimal than genuinely well-structured.

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 input parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a six-word description is not enough for an agent to know how to invoke the tool correctly or interpret its result. The relationship between the varied parameters and the catalog content is entirely unexplained.

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 documents all seven parameters with individual descriptions, giving high schema coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (common HTTP status codes) and indicates a short catalog, so the general intent is understandable. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or intended calling context. An agent would have to infer from the name/siblings what role it plays.

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