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

No annotations are provided and the description does not mention side effects, read-only behavior, output, or failure modes. Cryptic parameter notes like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'no disk access' do not clarify actual runtime behavior.

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 very brief, but the 9-field schema with unrelated parameters makes the tool cluttered and confusing. Brevity comes at the expense of essential clarity, so the structure is not effective.

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?

With 9 optional inputs, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is far from complete. Missing input/output semantics, example usage, and any relationship to sibling tools makes the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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?

Though every parameter has a description, each description is inconsistent with the stated purpose: 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint', 'Search text; discarded after the length check', etc. These appear to be generic leftovers from unrelated tools, not meaningful inputs for an HTTP status catalog.

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 only a noun phrase and does not state an explicit action or usage. The 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) have descriptions unrelated to HTTP status codes, making the tool's actual purpose ambiguous.

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 or when to prefer a sibling tool. The context shows many related tools, but the description does not distinguish status-catalog from tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, leaving an agent unable to decide when to invoke it.

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