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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'short catalog' and gives no behavioral details—what the tool returns, whether it performs any checks, or how it uses the 9 parameters. The schema suggests validation-like behavior, but the description does not disclose this, making it opaque.

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, which is concise but under-specified. It reads like a label rather than a functional description and does not front-load critical information about the tool's behavior or input requirements.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with its inputs, what it returns, or how it relates to the sibling tools, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, but the tool description adds no meaning to these parameters. The parameters appear unrelated to a status-code catalog (e.g., city, host, zone), and the description does not explain how they are used, so an agent cannot infer the tool's actual operation from the schema alone.

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 a clear resource and verb: 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' This distinguishes it from fetch-status, which likely fetches a status code, but it does not explain how the tool's parameters relate to the catalog, leaving ambiguity about what the tool actually does with inputs.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status or normalize-url. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving an agent to guess from the name alone.

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