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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'Short catalog' and says nothing about side effects, return shape, or the fact that all 9 parameters are optional and mostly discarded. It also does not explain why a status-code catalog accepts unrelated parameters like 'city' or 'json.'

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 one-sentence description is short, but it under-specifies the tool's action and usage instead of earning its place. It reads more like a label than a useful definition.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description fails to explain what the agent should pass, what it will get back, or why the catalog accepts 9 optional input fields. An agent cannot reliably decide whether to invoke this tool or what result to expect.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each of the 9 parameters, including notes like 'discarded after the shape check.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a noun phrase, 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' with no verb stating what the tool does or returns. It largely restates the tool name 'status-catalog' and does not differentiate 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 or alternative guidance is provided. The description does not mention siblings or any conditions for choosing this tool over related tools in the list, leaving the agent without a clear selection signal.

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