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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only says 'short catalog' which implies a read-only reference, but the parameters suggest side-effect-free checks ('discarded after the shape check'). No information is given about what the tool returns, whether it performs validation, or what 'discarded' means. The behavior is 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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, but the brevity sacrifices essential information. Still, it earns credit for not being verbose.

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?

This is a nine-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides no explanation of how the parameters are used, what the tool returns, or why the status-code catalog relates to inputs like 'zone' or 'query'. An agent has no way to correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 has its own description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and its stated purpose (status codes) is unrelated to the parameters, so it does not enhance comprehension. Per rubric, baseline 3 applies for high coverage, but the mismatch prevents any upward adjustment.

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 states a resource ('catalog of common HTTP status codes') but no verb or operation, and it fails to connect that purpose to the nine unrelated input parameters (URL, city, JSON, path, etc.). It does not distinguish itself from any of the 27 sibling tools and leaves the agent guessing what the tool actually does.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any use case, scenario, or exclusion, and the description's mention of a status-code catalog conflicts with the schema's validation-oriented parameters, offering no context for selection.

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