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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails entirely – it doesn't mention what happens to inputs, what operations are performed, what the output looks like, or any side effects. The parameter descriptions in the schema hint at discarded values, but the tool description itself offers zero 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 vague sentence that under-specifies the tool. It is short but not effective – it fails to front-load any useful content. The sentence does not earn its place because it merely restates the obvious and omits critical information.

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, many siblings, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, usage, or output, leaving an agent unable to correctly invoke it for any task.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter information. The schema itself provides useful descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but the tool description adds nothing to clarify how the parameters relate to generating or cataloging status codes.

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 says 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which restates the tool name and offers a vague noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource. It does not explain what the tool does with the 9 input parameters, so an agent cannot infer its function or distinguish it from siblings like fetch-status or validate-json.

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 vs. alternatives. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no way to decide between status-catalog and the related sibling tools.

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