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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It merely calls the tool a 'catalog' without stating whether it makes external calls, modifies state, or what happens with the provided parameters. The schema hints at 'discarded' values, but the tool description provides no such transparency.

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 one clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, though arguably too terse for the tool's actual complexity.

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 seven diverse parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description is a single noun phrase. It does not reconcile the purpose of a 'catalog' with the inputs like 'Git ref' or 'JSON text', leaving an agent unable to anticipate invocation behavior or return values.

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 describes all parameters with specific details (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), so schema coverage is high. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, leaving the baseline of 3 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 resource ('common HTTP status codes') and labels it as a 'catalog', but it lacks a verb and does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., returns a list, looks up a code, validates a status). It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status, which also deals with HTTP statuses.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or domain-shape. There is no context about intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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