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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. 'Short catalog' vaguely suggests a read-only reference, but it does not disclose whether parameters are accepted or ignored, what the output format is, or whether any side effects occur. The schema's parameter descriptions mention values being 'discarded,' which is important behavioral context absent from the description.

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 only one short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence noun phrase does not serve as adequate structured guidance.

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 annotations, and no output schema, and the description gives almost no context about invocation, expected behavior, or return value. The description also fails to reconcile the apparent mismatch between 'HTTP status codes' and the unrelated parameter names like city, feed, json, and path. This is a severely incomplete definition for an agent to call 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 input schema already documents all nine parameters with meaningful details. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not connect the parameters to the catalog purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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, 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' is essentially a noun phrase that restates the tool name 'status-catalog' without adding a specific verb or action. It does not say what the tool does with its inputs, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or domain-shape.

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 description implies it is a reference for HTTP status codes, but it does not mention any sibling tools, conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name rather than from the description.

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