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, and 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' discloses almost nothing. It is inferable that a catalog is read-only, but the description does not state side effects, whether it accepts network inputs (given the url and host parameters), or what the output looks like. It does not contradict annotations because none exist.

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?

Seven words with zero filler and the key noun phrase front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though not a 5 because the brevity comes at the cost of omitting any behavioral or parameter information.

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 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context beside the schema. It does not explain what the tool returns, how url/host/json/zone relate to status codes, or whether network calls occur (which the url and host parameters make plausible). An agent would struggle to invoke this tool 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter meaning and creates a domain mismatch: the schema documents url, host, json, and zone, yet the description talks only about HTTP status codes. An agent cannot tell which parameters are relevant or how they map to the catalog, so the description actively reduces parameter clarity despite the schema being complete.

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 states the resource ('catalog of common HTTP status codes') but uses only a noun phrase with no verb—it never says whether the tool returns a list, looks up a code, or maps codes to reason phrases. Some differentiation from siblings (citation, compatibility, conductor) can be inferred from the domain, but the stated purpose conflicts with the input schema, which contains url, host, json, and zone parameters that have no obvious relation to status codes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools (citation, compatibility, conductor), so an agent has no basis for choosing status-catalog over its siblings beyond the terse domain name.

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