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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects or read-only behavior, but it says nothing beyond the resource type. The word 'catalog' weakly implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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 very short and free of fluff, which is good for conciseness. However, it is terse to the point of omitting useful context while the parameter list remains unexplained in relation to the tool.

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 description omits any indication of output format, scope of 'common' codes, or whether the parameters are accepted but ignored. Given the lack of an output schema, more context is needed for an agent to call this confidently.

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?

All nine parameters have individual descriptions, but none of them explain how the value affects the returned catalog; most say the value is discarded. The descriptions do not tie any parameter to the tool's purpose, leaving an agent unable to predict parameter relevance.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing a catalog of common HTTP status codes, and the tool name reinforces this. It is immediately understandable what resource this returns, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 little guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as fetch-status or web-fetch. 'Short catalog' weakly implies reference use, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison is provided.

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