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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Short catalog' weakly implies a read-only lookup with no side effects, but the description does not disclose the output form, whether any input actually affects the result, or that most inputs are 'discarded after the shape check'—that detail is buried in the input schema instead.

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 filler and the purpose front-loaded. It is economical, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being an elegantly dense summary.

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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits how inputs relate to the catalog, what a caller receives, and when the tool would ever be the right pick among the long sibling list.

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% with explicit per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies even though the tool description itself adds nothing about parameters. The description neither explains why nine unrelated string inputs would be needed nor reveals that they are validated and discarded rather than used.

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 a concrete resource ('common HTTP status codes') and identifies the tool as a reference catalog, so an agent can roughly tell it from fetch call tools. However, the nine input parameters (city, json, zone, query, etc.) bear no obvious relation to a status-code catalog, so the purpose feels disconnected from the call contract, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 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 gives zero guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as fetch-status, web-fetch, or validate-json. There are no conditions, no exclusions, and no hint about which of the nine parameters (if any) is appropriate to supply.

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