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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it makes network calls, or whether parameters affect the output. The word 'catalog' weakly suggests a passive reference, but that is not explicit.

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 filler. It could be slightly more informative by adding a verb and clarifying the return value, but as a concise statement it is well-sized.

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 annotation coverage, so the description is the only place to communicate return behavior, parameter relevance, and side effects. As written, an agent cannot confidently predict what invoking this tool will do or why nine unrelated optional parameters are exposed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the parameters documented in the schema (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are largely unrelated to an HTTP status code catalog. The description adds no guidance on which parameter, if any, should be supplied, and it does not state that all parameters are optional or ignored.

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 a clear resource ('common HTTP status codes') and scope ('short catalog'), so an agent can infer this is a reference lookup for status codes. It lacks an explicit operation verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and does not contrast it with siblings like fetch-status, but the intent is still recognizable.

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?

The description implies usage: an agent should select this when it needs a compact reference of common HTTP status codes. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternative tools such as fetch-status.

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