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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals no behavior beyond a noun phrase: no return format, no side effects, no read-only indication, and no mention that the parameters appear to be 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 short, but it is under-specified rather than helpfully concise: it omits the action, usage context, and output expectation. The word 'Short' adds little beyond the name and does not earn its place.

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 parameters and no output schema, a one-line noun phrase is not adequate. The description does not explain why the parameters exist, whether any are required, or what the returned catalog looks like.

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 documents all seven parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no guidance on how or whether to supply any parameter, and the parameters are oddly unrelated to a status-code catalog, each repeatedly marked as discarded.

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 a resource—common HTTP status codes—and suggests the tool is a catalog, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', so the action is implied rather than stated. It also does not distinguish the tool from the sibling fetch-status, which could be confused with status-code retrieval.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternative tools. Usage is only vaguely implied by the word 'catalog' and the tool name.

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