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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires any authentication, though the catalog nature weakly implies a safe read operation.

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 concise, using a single short sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core subject and there is no filler or irrelevant content.

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?

Despite its brevity, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation: it omits the output format, whether parameters act as filters, and how the catalog is structured. The presence of nine unrelated optional parameters compounds the ambiguity.

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 the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter explanation. The description adds no meaning to the nine optional parameters, and their relationship to HTTP status codes is unclear, but the high schema coverage prevents a lower score.

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 resource as common HTTP status codes and indicates a catalog-like listing, making the core purpose understandable. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'list' or 'get' and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or browser-url-ok. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or when another tool would be preferable.

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