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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. 'Catalog' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly state that no network, file, or state-changing operations occur.

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 with no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 one-sentence description omits output format, parameter semantics, and usage context, leaving an agent with insufficient information to confidently invoke the tool despite its simple name.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the 9 parameters, so the baseline applies. However, the parameter descriptions are generic and mostly state that values are discarded or checked, and the tool description itself does not explain how any parameter relates to the status-code 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 identifies the resource (common HTTP status codes) and that it is a short catalog, so the core purpose is recognizable. It lacks a clear verb or explicit statement of what the caller receives, and it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like fetch-status.

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 about when to use status-catalog versus alternative tools, no prerequisites, and no indication of expected inputs or outputs.

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