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

There are no annotations, so the description must shoulder the behavioral burden, but it only states what the catalog contains and not what happens during a call. It does not disclose output behavior, side effects, or the fact that several schema parameters are 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately concise for a simple reference tool. It errs on the side of under-specification, but conciseness itself is handled well.

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 documented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is not enough for an agent to know what to pass or what the returned catalog will look like. It communicates the general subject area but leaves the invocation contract largely unspecified.

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 provides descriptions for all seven parameters, which establishes the schema-coverage baseline of 3. The description contributes nothing about how parameters relate to the catalog, so it adds no additional parameter-level meaning.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a catalog of common HTTP status codes, which conveys the resource and scope well enough to separate it from fetch/validation siblings. It lacks an explicit action verb such as 'look up' or 'return,' but the noun 'catalog' makes the intended read-only reference purpose reasonably clear.

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 about when to choose this tool over fetch-status, web-fetch, or other status-related siblings, nor any mention of preconditions or exclusions. The only implicit signal is the word 'catalog,' which is too weak to route an agent confidently.

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