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 disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, how inputs are used, or any side effects. The input schema is full of 'discarded after the call' fields, but the description does not explain this apparent behavior at all.

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 it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single sentence that restates the name and adds minimal qualifiers does not earn its place; it fails to provide essential operational context while using up the entire description budget.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters with no output schema and no annotations. The description is only a fragment that does not explain how the parameters relate to a 'catalog of HTTP status codes,' what the expected output format is, or which sibling tools this overlaps with. An agent cannot correctly select or invoke this tool based on the current description.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters, so schema coverage is high. The description itself adds no parameter information, but because the schema already documents each parameter's meaning and disposition, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate for the mismatch between the tool's stated purpose and the heterogeneous parameter list, but it does not actively mislead either.

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 that essentially restates the tool name: 'status-catalog' becomes 'catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It adds the qualifier 'HTTP' but provides no verb or action, so the agent cannot tell whether the tool lists, looks up, validates, or maps status codes. It does not meaningfully distinguish this 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, no examples, and no exclusions or preconditions. An agent has no basis to decide between status-catalog and other sibling tools.

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