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

There are no annotations and the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or read-only guarantees. It is unclear whether the tool performs any write actions or has external dependencies.

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 concise sentence, which is structurally acceptable. However, it omits essential details and does not follow a clear 'verb + object' pattern, reducing effectiveness despite brevity.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how parameters relate to the tool, what the output format is, or what 'catalog' means in practical terms, leaving agents without necessary context.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema includes detailed descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') that suggest a different purpose, but these are not reconciled with the stated catalog of HTTP status codes, leaving agents unable to infer parameter usage.

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' states a subject but lacks a clear verb or action, leaving ambiguous whether the tool retrieves, lists, or validates status codes. The nine input parameters are entirely unrelated to HTTP status codes, further obscuring the actual purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus any of the 28 sibling tools. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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