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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotenceHint=true, so the description adds very little behavioral context beyond saying the content is 'short' and covers 'common' codes. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or input behavior, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It front-loads the basic catalog idea but does not earn its place as the sole description for a tool with seven parameters and no output schema.

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 seven unrelated input properties, no output schema, and many sibling tools, a one-line content label is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether any parameter is required, or how inputs such as city, feed, json, and path relate to HTTP status codes.

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 description coverage is 100%, and every one of the seven properties has its own description, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden. The tool description contributes no additional meaning about how ref, url, city, feed, host, json, or path relate to the catalog, which keeps this at the 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 is a noun phrase, not a verb+resource statement, and it largely restates the tool name: 'status-catalog' becomes 'catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It narrows the domain to HTTP status codes, but it does not say whether the tool returns, filters, or inspects anything, and it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. An agent is not told why it should call status-catalog instead of a sibling such as fetch-status or domain-shape, so the description leaves usage entirely to inference.

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