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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, or data handling. The description does not mention any behavioral aspects (e.g., whether it performs network calls, writes data, or only reads). The parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' but that refers to parameter handling, not tool 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 extremely concise—a single short sentence with no filler words. It gets straight to the point, though the point itself is vague. No unnecessary information is included.

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 lacks any output schema, annotations, or explanatory details. The description is insufficient to understand how to invoke the tool, what the expected output is, or how the parameters relate to the purpose. Given the mismatch between the description and the parameter set, the description is not adequate for an agent to use the tool 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?

The parameter descriptions are individually provided but do not connect to the tool's stated purpose of being an HTTP status code catalog. For example, 'ref' is described as a Git ref name, 'city' as a city name, and 'query' as search text—none of these relate to HTTP status codes. The schema coverage is 100% in that every parameter has a description, but the descriptions do not clarify how these inputs are used or why they matter for this tool.

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 purpose ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') but does not specify the actual action (e.g., list, lookup, validate). It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-driven tool description. The extensive parameter list (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) does not align with the stated purpose, creating confusion about what the tool actually does.

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. There is no mention of conditions, edge cases, or comparisons to sibling tools. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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