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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Short catalog' implies a read-only reference, but it does not state the return format, whether parameters are required, or that many input parameters are effectively ignored despite the schema saying they are discarded.

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 fluff, and the core subject is front-loaded. However, it is somewhat under-specified, which is the main reason 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?

Despite being a nominally simple reference tool, the input schema has eight parameters and no output schema, and the description does not explain how any of them relate to querying the catalog. An agent would be uncertain whether to pass arguments or expect a static list, making the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters, so the schema coverage is high. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 of common HTTP status codes, which clearly conveys its subject matter and general function. It is distinguishable from siblings like fetch-status, which likely checks a live URL, though it does not use an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

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 alternatives such as fetch-status or other URL-shape tools. The description only implies a reference use case but gives no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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