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

No annotations accompany this tool, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'catalog' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description discloses nothing about what happens to the inputs, whether the call mutates anything, what the response contains, or why parameters are 'discarded after' checks. The schema hints at shape-checking behavior, but the description contributes no behavioral transparency of its own.

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?

Seven words is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no front-loaded action, no scoping constraint, and no differentiating signal — the sentence merely echoes the tool name rather than earning its place by adding information.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 27 sibling tools, this definition is severely incomplete. The description does not explain the return value, edge cases, rate limits, or what 'catalog' means operationally. An agent cannot reliably decide to call this tool or construct a meaningful request from what is provided.

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 high (all 8 params have descriptions), which sets a baseline of 3, but the description fails to add any meaning that ties these heterogeneous parameters (Git ref, city, RSS feed, JSON text, file path) to the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog. The schema's own notes about values being 'discarded after the shape check' actively suggest a different underlying behavior than the description conveys, leaving agents confused about how to populate parameters correctly.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' merely restates the tool name 'status-catalog' with slightly more words, making it close to a tautology. It names a noun resource but never states the verb or operation performed — does it look up a code, list all codes, or validate something against a code? The eight input parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) bear no evident connection to HTTP status codes, so an agent cannot infer what the tool actually does with them.

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 provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the 27 siblings are fetch-status, web-fetch, and domain-shape, which plausibly overlap with HTTP/status-related tasks, but the description never distinguishes this tool from them or states conditions for selection.

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