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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool is a catalog, giving no information about side effects, what the input parameters influence, whether it makes network calls, or what the output looks like. There is no depth beyond the assertion of what it is.

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 only one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not front-load operational information, and the phrase 'short catalog' carries little value. The brevity is detrimental given the tool's 9-parameter input schema.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is radically incomplete. An agent cannot tell what triggering this tool does, what the parameters are for, or what a result means. This is unusable without external documentation or extensive inference.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description itself adds nothing about the parameters or how they map to HTTP status codes, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 that the tool is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which does identify the subject matter. However, it is a noun-phrase and does not specify what the tool does with the inputs: does it return a list, map inputs to codes, or validate them? It also does not distinguish it from sibling tools such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok, leaving the tool's role ambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings. There is no mention of intended scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no way to decide whether status-catalog is appropriate for a task.

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