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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says the tool is a 'short catalog.' It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what its output looks like, how it processes inputs, or why parameters are 'discarded after the call.'

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 short but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It is a noun phrase rather than a useful instruction, so the brevity is not a strength.

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 unrelated-looking parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line description, the definition is far too incomplete for an agent to know what to pass or what to expect back.

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?

All seven parameters have individual schema descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the schema descriptions do not explain how these varied inputs relate to an HTTP status code catalog.

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 essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'status-catalog' becomes 'catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It names the resource but provides no action verb, operation, or differentiation from siblings 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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or domain-shape. No use cases, exclusions, or routing hints are given.

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