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, but it says only that the catalog is 'short.' It neither confirms read-only behavior nor discloses side effects, input handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or any post-call effects. The word 'catalog' mildly implies a read-only operation, but this is far too implicit for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient editing. It front-loads only a generic noun phrase and leaves out all operational, behavioral, and contextual information required to use the tool correctly. A concise description should preserve meaning, and this one does not.

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?

A 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs a substantial description, but this one supplies only a category label. It does not explain when to invoke the tool, how the parameters relate to HTTP status codes, what the catalog's output format is, or which sibling tools it complements. The definition is effectively unusable for selecting and invoking this tool without external knowledge.

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 input schema already documents every parameter. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline rule for high schema coverage; it does not compensate for the missing connection between the parameters and the stated 'catalog of HTTP 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 is a noun phrase, 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which names the resource but never states an action, invocation behavior, or output type. It is close to a tautology of the tool name and does not distinguish status-catalog from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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 usage guidance at all: no when-to-use conditions, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of alternative sibling tools. An agent cannot determine whether to call this tool instead of fetch-status, web-fetch, or normalize-url from the description alone.

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