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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only says the tool is a short catalog. It does not disclose return format, whether parameters affect the result, or that the inputs are discarded as stated in the schema.

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 clause with no filler, and the subject is front-loaded. It sacrifices completeness for efficiency, but it is appropriately concise for such a brief statement.

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 seven optional-looking parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description explains none of the invocation context: what inputs should be supplied, what the return value contains, or how the catalog relates to the parameters. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 already describes all seven parameters in detail, so high schema coverage establishes a baseline of 3. The tool description itself adds nothing about parameters, and the relationship between the catalog and parameters like city or feed remains unexplained.

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 names the resource (catalog of common HTTP status codes) but uses no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool returns, lists, or looks up codes. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as fetch-status or web-fetch.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling such as fetch-status. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent must infer the trigger from the name alone.

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