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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states a static catalog. It doesn't mention whether the tool makes network calls, validates inputs, returns status codes, or discards parameters (as hinted in the schema). The behavior is entirely opaque.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It omits essential details about usage, parameters, and output, so brevity is not a virtue here.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, how parameters are used, or any constraints, making it impossible for an agent to call the tool correctly without guessing.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema, but the tool description adds no context to link them to the catalog. The parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') suggest shape checks, which are unrelated to status codes. The description fails to explain how any parameter influences the tool's purpose, so it doesn't compensate for the semantic gap.

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 is vague and doesn't state what the tool actually does with its inputs. It fails to connect the 9 parameters (e.g., url, city, json) to any action or output, making it unclear whether it returns a status code, validates a URL, or something else. There is no differentiation from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes tools like fetch-status and browser-url-ok that likely handle HTTP status checks, but the description offers no conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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