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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool is a 'short catalog.' It does not state whether this tool reads, mutates, validates, or returns data, nor does it disclose side effects, permissions, or output behavior. This leaves the agent with almost no behavioral information.

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 short sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified: the word 'Short' adds little value, and there is no structure such as a leading action or usage cue. It is concise but at the expense of useful content.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only names a domain. It fails to explain what the tool does with the parameters, what it returns, or how it should be invoked. Far more context is needed for an agent to use this correctly.

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 all nine parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain how parameters like ref, city, or json relate to an HTTP status code catalog, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as a catalog of common HTTP status codes, so an agent can infer the domain. However, it lacks a verb or action—it does not say whether the tool returns, lists, or validates status codes—and it does nothing to distinguish itself 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 its siblings. No alternatives are named, no exclusions are given, and no context is provided that would help an agent choose status-catalog over fetch-status or other status-related tools.

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