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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is purely read-only, whether it queries a remote source, what output shape to expect, or whether any parameters affect the result. 'Catalog' weakly suggests a static reference, but the description does not disclose actual runtime behavior or limitations.

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 sentence and has no redundant filler, which is economical. However, it is under-specified for a tool carrying nine optional parameters and no annotations, so the brevity is not matched to the actual conceptual complexity.

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?

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too sparse. It does not describe the returned catalog format, whether no-parameter calls are valid, how the parameter values relate to status codes, or any error/limitation behavior. An agent would have to call the tool to discover even the basic call convention.

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 is already described at the schema level and the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning and, more importantly, does not explain why nine unrelated optional fields such as 'city', 'feed', and 'query' belong in a status-code catalog, leaving a conceptual gap that the description should have addressed.

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 is a noun phrase—'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes'—that mostly restates the tool name 'status-catalog' and lacks a concrete operation like 'lists', 'returns', or 'explains'. It does not tell an agent whether this tool returns the whole catalog, looks up a single code, or translates a number into a meaning, and it does not distinguish it from sibling tools such as fetch-status.

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 about when to call this tool, when not to call it, or how it differs from alternatives. Sibling tools like fetch-status and web-fetch are not referenced, and the description provides no routing signal such as 'use when you need a plain mapping of status numbers to names'. The only implied trigger is 'catalog', which is too weak to be actionable.

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