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. It discloses no behavior at all: no return value, side effects, constraints, or failure modes. The description is a static label and offers no insight into what the tool actually does when invoked.

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 extremely short, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information and does not earn its place as a useful description. The single sentence is vague and does not provide structural clarity or front-load critical details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, how the parameters are used, or what the caller should expect. An agent cannot correctly select or invoke this tool based on the provided description.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. The individual schema descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check') hint at validation behavior but are not tied to the stated purpose of status codes. The description itself does not clarify how these parameters relate to the catalog, but since the schema already documents each parameter, we do not penalize heavily.

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, not a verb+resource action. It does not specify what the tool does (e.g., 'looks up' or 'returns' codes) and conflicts with the input schema, which contains parameters like 'url', 'city', and 'json' that suggest a generic shape-checking tool rather than a status-code catalog. It also fails to distinguish from siblings like 'fetch-status', which likely retrieves status codes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent cannot infer which scenarios this tool is appropriate for, especially given the mismatch between the description and the schema.

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