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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only describes the content type ('catalog') without stating what the tool does, whether it returns data, mutates state, or has side effects. The input schema hints that some values are 'discarded after' checks, but the description itself adds no behavioral transparency.

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 only one short clause, so it is not wordy, but it is under-specified and lacks an action that would make the sentence useful. While it is concise, it does not provide enough functional information to earn its place as a tool description.

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 tool has seven heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description gives almost no context about expected inputs, return values, or use cases. An agent cannot determine what to pass, what the response will look like, or which sibling tools overlap. This is far from complete.

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 description does not add any parameter-level meaning, but every one of the seven parameters has its own description in the input schema (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). Since schema_description_coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither helps nor hurts parameter understanding.

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 is a noun phrase, 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which mostly restates the tool name and lacks any verb or action verb like 'return,' 'look up,' or 'validate.' It does not explain how the many input parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) relate to the catalog or what the tool actually does. This makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish it from status-related siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, preconditions, or exclusions, and it never references sibling tools or alternative approaches. An agent would have no way to decide whether to call status-catalog or another status-related tool.

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