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

There are no meaningful annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. Calling something a 'catalog' is not enough to communicate side effects, output format, input handling, or failure modes, and the description reveals none of these.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a tool with seven parameters and no supporting annotations, a one-clause noun phrase omits too much essential 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?

There is no output schema and no behavioral annotation, so the description needed to explain what the tool returns and how the parameters are used. Instead it provides only a label, making the tool effectively uninvocable from the definition alone.

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 schema provides descriptions for all seven parameters, but the tool description offers no connection between those parameters and the stated catalog purpose. Fields like url, city, feed, json, and path appear unrelated to HTTP status codes, and nothing explains which parameter an agent should pass.

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 just a noun phrase, 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which essentially restates the tool name without saying what action the agent should take or what the tool returns. It adds only the HTTP-status domain but does not distinguish it from siblings like 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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, prerequisites, or how status-catalog relates to sibling tools such as fetch-status or web-fetch, leaving an agent with no basis for selection.

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