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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool is a 'short catalog.' It does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only, whether inputs are validated, or what happens to the provided parameters.

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 short and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks the structural elements needed to help an agent understand how to invoke the tool.

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?

The tool has eight heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the entire description is one sentence. This is completely inadequate for an agent to determine correct inputs, expected behavior, or return value.

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 already covers most parameter semantics. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify why parameters like 'city' or 'feed' are relevant to a status-code catalog, but the high schema coverage keeps this at baseline.

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' essentially restates the tool name and lacks a verb or action, so it does not clearly define what calling the tool does. The input schema contains diverse parameters like ref, city, feed, and json, but the description gives no clue how they relate to a status-code catalog.

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 siblings such as fetch-status, validate-json, or domain-shape. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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