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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it says nothing about side effects, read-only behavior, or whether the tool performs any I/O. The schema's 'discarded' notes are not reflected in the description.

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 and free of fluff, but it is so terse that it reads more like a label than a functional description. It is appropriately concise yet lacks necessary structural detail.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not mention return format, pagination, filtering, or any expected result shape. For a catalog tool, the lack of output details makes it substantially incomplete.

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 schema descriptions already cover all parameters and state that each is discarded, so the parameter behavior is mostly specified. However, the description adds no meaning about why a status-code catalog would accept these unrelated fields, leaving the parameter-purpose connection unclear.

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 names the resource ('common HTTP status codes') but lacks an action verb, so it is unclear whether the tool lists, looks up, validates, or explains status codes. It also does not distinguish itself strongly from sibling tools like fetch-status.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, or what kind of query/input would trigger its use. The description is purely declarative and offers no usage context.

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