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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only says this is a catalog. It does not state whether the call is read-only, whether parameters are ignored or discarded, or what the response looks like. The input schema even hints that many inputs are discarded after checks, but the description does not confirm this behavior.

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 noun phrase with no filler, and the label 'short' is up front. It is concise, but it is concise to the point of under-specification.

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 10 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description provides almost none of the context an agent needs to call it correctly. It does not explain what output to expect, which parameter to use, or how it relates to the sibling tools.

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 contributes no parameter meaning, but the input schema already documents all 10 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. Those schema descriptions are internally informative (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), though their relationship to a 'catalog of HTTP status codes' remains unclear.

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 identifies the tool as a catalog/reference of common HTTP status codes, which is more than a tautology and gives some sense of purpose. However, it lacks an action verb and does not clarify how this differs from siblings like fetch-status, which likely perform live status fetches.

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 indication of when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no mention of fetch-status or other sibling tools, and no conditions or exclusions. The only implied usage is looking up common codes, but that is left entirely to inference.

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