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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'short catalog' and does not disclose whether the inputs affect the result, whether it performs any network/disk access, or what the output shape is.

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 and is easy to read, with no padding or repetition. It is concise but sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not cover return format, parameter roles, error behavior, or scope. A tool with nine optional parameters and no explanation of their relevance is materially incomplete.

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 every parameter has a schema description, those descriptions are unrelated to HTTP status codes: git refs, URLs, city names, feeds, hosts, JSON text, file paths, timezone names, and search text. The description does not explain how any of these optional parameters would influence the catalog 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 names the resource ('common HTTP status codes') and indicates a 'short catalog', so the core purpose is recognizable. However, it lacks an explicit verb or statement of what the tool returns (e.g., whether it lists all codes or looks one up), and the unrelated input parameters blur the 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 related siblings such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. The description provides no conditions, examples, or exclusions.

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