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

The description does not disclose any behavior beyond the apparent read-only catalog function. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention whether the tool performs any checks, validations, or has side effects, leaving the agent to infer safety.

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 brief for a tool with 9 optional parameters. While concise, it omits essential information about the parameters' roles. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool meaningfully.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does with the input parameters, whether they are filters, modifiers, or irrelevant, nor does it provide any usage context. The agent is left with a catalog description but no clue how to use the provided parameters.

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 tool description does not explain how any of the 9 parameters relate to HTTP status codes. The schema descriptions are present but appear nonsensical for this purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' or 'City name for a public weather hint'). These descriptions actively mislead rather than clarify, making the parameters effectively meaningless in context.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it provides a short catalog of common HTTP status codes. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch-status, which likely checks individual URLs.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where a status code catalog is needed, nor does it compare with fetch-status or other related tools from the sibling list.

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