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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing about side effects, read-only behavior, return format, or how inputs affect the catalog. The word 'catalog' weakly implies a read operation, but that is not explicit and no behavioral traits are actually revealed.

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 short fragment with no filler or redundant clauses. It is front-loaded with the core subject. However, it is under-specified enough that brevity comes at the cost of clarity, so it does not earn a 5.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, yet the description is only seven words. The parameter descriptions in the schema fill some gaps, but the overall purpose, expected behavior, and relationship between inputs and the catalog remain unexplained. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain how parameters like city, zone, or json relate to a status-code catalog. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 essentially a noun phrase: 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It identifies the resource but never states what the tool does with it or what action it performs. It also does not distinguish the tool from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which could also relate to HTTP statuses.

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 of the 27 siblings. The description implies a reference lookup use case, but it never states conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent must guess whether to use this instead of fetch-status or agent-tool-index.

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