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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, and it simply says 'short catalog' without disclosing side effects, return format, or that several parameters are described as discarded after shape checks. The actual behavioral clues live only inside the input schema, not in the tool description.

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 brief, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. A single sentence with no structure, no input/output context, and no indication of how the parameters are used does not earn its place as a useful guide.

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?

Given seven heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. An agent cannot infer what response to expect, which parameter to provide, whether this is a lookup or validation tool, or how the 'catalog' relates to the input fields.

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 contains seven properties, each with its own description, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already documents each field, including notes like 'discarded after the shape check.'

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 nearly a restatement of the tool name and has no operational verb such as 'returns,' 'lists,' or 'validates.' It names a resource but fails to explain what the tool actually does or how the many unrelated input parameters relate to it.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status or web-fetch. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to guess when this tool should be chosen.

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