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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what the tool returns, whether it performs any external calls, has side effects, or how the input parameters are used. The phrase 'discarded after the shape check' in schema descriptions hints at validations, but the tool-level description adds no behavioral context.

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. While concise in word count, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It does not front-load actionable information and omits essential details about what the tool does with the inputs.

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 and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's actual behavior, how parameters influence results, or what a caller should expect. The mismatch between the stated purpose (HTTP status codes) and the parameter set further compounds the incompleteness.

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 short description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). This gives some semantics but the tool description adds nothing about how the parameters relate to the stated purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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 suggests it returns a reference list. However, the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) that have no obvious connection to HTTP status codes, making the purpose unclear and potentially misleading. The verb 'catalog' is vague and does not specify what action the tool performs.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., `fetch-status`, `browser-url-ok`, `normalize-url`). The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternative tools.

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