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. 'Catalog' weakly implies a read-only listing, but the description does not mention output format, side effects, authentication, or data handling; the 'discarded' notes appear only in the input schema, not in the 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 a single short sentence with no filler and the subject matter is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the little content it conveys, though that content is minimal.

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 unrelated-looking string parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no sibling guidance, this one-line description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine which parameter to pass, what the tool returns, or how the catalog is meant to be used.

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 schema descriptions, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no meaning about how ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path relate to the HTTP status-code catalog, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 that restates the tool name: 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It names a resource but no verb or operation, and it does nothing to distinguish status-catalog from the sibling fetch-status or the various *-shape tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, exclusions, or sibling references are provided, so an agent cannot tell whether to call status-catalog or fetch-status for a status-code question.

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