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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'Short catalog', implying a read-only reference, but does not disclose side effects, return format, or how the parameters are used. The schema hints at validation and discarding, but the description itself adds no behavioral transparency.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded, stating the resource immediately. It is appropriately sized for a simple catalog, though it lacks detail, but for conciseness it scores well.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain how the parameters are used together, what the tool returns, or any usage context. The schema provides per-parameter details but not the overall workflow, so the description is incomplete.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters relate to the catalog, but the schema already documents each parameter's role (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), so the agent can understand them from the schema.

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 tool provides a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes', which clearly conveys its purpose. However, it does not distinguish it from the many sibling tools, and the presence of nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) is confusing, so it is not fully differentiated.

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. It does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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