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

There are no annotations provided, and the description discloses no side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. The tool's behavior is entirely opaque; it is unclear whether it performs network requests, reads files, or purely returns static data. No behavioral expectations are set.

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 concise but far too sparse. It is a single sentence that omits essential details about parameter usage, return format, or tool behavior. While brevity is a virtue, here it sacrifices clarity and leaves critical gaps that should be filled for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 the complexity of the schema (9 parameters, no output schema) and the confusing parameter descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not clarify the role of the parameters, the expected output, error handling, or any constraints. The agent cannot confidently predict what the tool does or how to call it 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 description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema lists nine unrelated parameters (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'city', 'zone') with descriptions that appear mismatched (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'), none of which clearly relate to HTTP status codes. The description fails to explain how any of these parameters influence the catalog output, leaving the agent completely in the dark.

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 primary purpose: 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' However, it is extremely brief and does not elaborate on how the tool provides this catalog or what kind of output to expect. The vague phrasing leaves room for interpretation, especially given the unrelated parameter names.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like 'fetch-status' or 'browser-url-ok', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The agent is left without criteria to select this tool.

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