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, but it only says 'catalog', which suggests a read-only reference without detailing any side effects, input/output behavior, or special constraints. It doesn't disclose what the tool does with the provided URL, host, json, or zone parameters, or what the return value looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool that accepts a heterogeneous set of parameters.

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 words. It is appropriately sized for a simple reference tool, though it could add a bit more actionable detail without becoming bloated.

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 the odd mix of parameters (url, host, json, zone) with no required params and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what the tool does with these inputs, what it returns, or how it relates to a catalog of HTTP status codes. The description is inadequate for the tool's complexity and ambiguous parameter design.

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 has 100% coverage for the four parameters, with each having a basic description ('HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'Public hostname', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check', 'IANA timezone name'). However, the description does not explain why these parameters relate to a catalog of HTTP status codes, and the connection is unclear. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation, but the description adds little semantic cohesion.

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' gives a specific subject (HTTP status codes) and indicates it is a catalog/reference, which is reasonably clear. However, it doesn't state the tool's actual behavior—whether it returns codes, maps them, or validates them—so it lacks a strong action verb. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like 'citation' or 'compatibility' but not explicitly.

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 the sibling tools such as 'citation', 'compatibility', or 'validate-json'. The description only says it is a catalog of status codes, leaving the agent to infer when this is relevant. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided.

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