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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only catalog but does not disclose side effects, output format, or the fact that all nine parameters appear to be ignored or discarded.

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 and front-loaded, using a single clear sentence with no fluff or redundancy.

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 description lacks important context: there is no output schema, no explanation of what the catalog contains beyond 'common' status codes, and no reconciliation with the confusing set of optional parameters. An agent would be uncertain about the expected return value and whether parameters matter.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are unrelated to a status-code catalog and appear copied from other tools, with notes like 'discarded after the shape check.' This adds confusion rather than clarifying how each parameter relates to the tool's purpose.

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 tool's purpose: providing a short catalog of common HTTP status codes. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like fetch-status by focusing on a static catalog rather than fetching or checking a URL, though it does not explicitly state that it returns a list.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or web-fetch. The description does not mention scenarios, expected input, or exclusions.

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