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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it is a 'catalog' but does not explain what happens when parameters are passed, whether it performs any validation, returns data, or has side effects. The schema notes that several parameters are 'discarded after the check', but the description does not clarify this.

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, which is concise in length, but it does not earn its place because it adds no actionable information. It is under-specification rather than efficient writing. The front-loaded content is merely a restatement of the tool's name.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the tool uses the parameters, what it returns, or any constraints. An agent cannot determine correct invocation from this description alone.

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 every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters. According to the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high, even if the description omits parameter details.

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 a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name 'status-catalog'. It lacks a verb indicating what action the tool performs (e.g., returns, lists, validates). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch-status' or 'browser-url-ok', which also relate to HTTP statuses.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 26 sibling tools. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to select this tool over others.

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