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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior—but it discloses none. It does not state whether the tool validates, transforms, checks, or returns status codes, nor what side effects (e.g., external requests) might occur despite the seemingly read-only 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 only five words, but extreme brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It conveys almost no actionable information, and there is no structured front-loading of key facts.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no behavior explanation, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine what action to take, what the tool returns, or how the parameters relate to the catalog.

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%, meaning each of the four parameters has a one-line explanation (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate, though the description fails to connect these parameters to the stated 'catalog' purpose.

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, 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name 'status-catalog.' It lacks a specific verb or resource indicating what the tool actually does with the provided inputs (url, host, json, zone), and does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'citation' or 'compatibility.'

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings. No context is provided about typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where this tool would be preferred.

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