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

With no annotations and only a one-sentence noun phrase, the description does not disclose side effects, return format, filtering behavior, or whether the optional parameters are used or ignored. The schema hints at 'discarded' behavior but the description provides no confirmation.

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 concise and front-loaded, but it is too sparse to be useful; it reads more like a title than an operational description. It earns a middle score for not being verbose, but it sacrifices necessary 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?

The tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no context about expected inputs, outputs, or behavior. An agent has essentially no information to construct a correct call beyond the misleading parameter names.

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?

Every parameter has a schema description, so the schema coverage is high and the baseline is met. However, the descriptions are unrelated to HTTP status codes (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint'), and the tool description does not clarify how or whether these parameters affect the result.

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 and never states an action or return value. It identifies the topic as HTTP status codes but does not explain what the tool does, and the nine input parameters (e.g., ref, city, json) are unrelated to that topic, so an agent cannot infer the tool's actual purpose.

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 about when to use this tool instead of siblings like fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or validate-json. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when the tool is appropriate.

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