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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no side effects, whether network access occurs, or how inputs are processed. Although the schema hints that many inputs are 'discarded,' the description itself offers no behavioral context, making it opaque.

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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary context about parameters, return values, or examples. This is not efficient conciseness; it is insufficient specification.

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?

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, what it returns, or how to interpret the parameters. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly with the given information.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so individual parameters are documented. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters combine or why they are relevant to HTTP status codes. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema is complete, but the description fails to clarify the tool's usage.

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 it is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which clearly identifies the resource and general purpose. However, it does not explain how the nine input parameters relate to the catalog, nor does it differentiate from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok. The purpose is present but incomplete.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, typical use cases, or exclusions. Siblings are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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