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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about side effects, read-only safety, authentication needs, or what happens to the inputs. The schema hints at 'discarded after the shape check' and similar behavior, yet the description does not mention any of this, leaving the agent blind to the tool's actual effects.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise clarity. One tautological sentence does not earn its place because it provides almost no operational content. The structure offers no front-loaded actionable detail.

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?

For a tool with seven heterogeneous parameters and no output schema, a one-sentence catalog mention is severely incomplete. The description does not explain what inputs are for, what the tool returns, or how it relates to sibling shape-checking tools. An agent would be guessing how to call it correctly.

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 their own descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the baseline rule, this yields a score of 3 even though the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The description does not connect the parameters to the catalog concept, but the schema already documents each parameter.

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' is essentially a noun phrase restating the tool name (status-catalog). It lacks a verb or specific action, so an agent cannot tell what operation to perform (e.g., look up a code, list codes, or map inputs to codes), and it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like fetch-status or domain-shape.

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 use this tool versus any alternative. The description only states what the thing is, not the conditions under which an agent should call it, and no sibling tools are referenced. This gives the agent no basis for choosing it over related tools.

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