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 only implies the tool is a passive reference ('catalog') and that the catalog is limited to common codes ('short'). It says nothing about side effects, network calls, auth, rate limits, or what the tool returns, and its only hint at discard behavior lives in the schema descriptions, not 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 seven words in a single sentence with zero filler, and the key subject ('HTTP status codes') is front-loaded. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy. The brevity veers into under-specification, but that penalty belongs to contextual completeness rather than conciseness.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single fragment is inadequate. The description neither explains how an agent should invoke it to get a status code nor describes the return value, and the parameter set appears entirely disconnected from the stated purpose. An agent cannot determine from this definition how to call the tool correctly or what it will receive back.

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 coverage is 100% — all nine parameters have descriptions — so the baseline of 3 applies. But the tool description adds zero parameter semantics: it never explains how ref, url, city, feed, host, json, or path relate to a catalog of HTTP status codes. The schema documents each parameter individually, yet neither the schema nor the description establishes a coherent link between those inputs and the tool's stated purpose.

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 names the resource domain (HTTP status codes) with more specificity than the bare name 'status-catalog', which could ambiguously imply git status, server status, or tool status. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb — it doesn't say whether the tool looks up a code, lists all codes, or maps inputs to codes. None of the nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) obviously connect to querying an HTTP status code, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling fetch-status.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions no conditions, no use cases, and no exclusions, and it never names alternatives — despite fetch-status being a natural point of confusion in the sibling list. An agent has nothing to route on.

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