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. It only says 'Short catalog' and gives no information about side effects, permissions, or how the parameters affect behavior. The parameter descriptions hint at discarding values after checks, but the tool's actual behavior is completely opaque.

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 and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence with no elaboration is adequate for trivial tools, but given the complexity of the schema, it does not earn a higher score.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does with the parameters, what it returns, or when it should be used, making it impossible for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema descriptions cover all nine parameters (100% coverage), but the tool description adds no extra meaning. The parameter descriptions are generic (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') and do not explain how they relate to HTTP status codes. The description does not compensate for the lack of clarity in the schema.

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 states a specific resource (HTTP status codes) and a verb (catalog), but the input schema's nine parameters (city, url, host, zone, query, etc.) are unrelated to status codes, creating confusion. It does not clarify how these parameters are used, and it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many shape-check and validation tools, but the description provides no conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this catalog is appropriate.

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