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

With no annotations, the description must convey side effects and return behavior; it only says 'catalog', and while parameter descriptions mention discard/no-disk-access, the main tool behavior and output format are not disclosed.

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 or redundant wording, making it easy to scan; it loses a point because it omits critical information that could have been included in the same space.

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 never explains what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or what 'catalog' means in an operational sense; this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 full coverage, the parameter descriptions are about Git refs, URLs, cities, timezones, etc., and do not clarify how any of these relate to a catalog of HTTP status codes; the explanations are individually clear but collectively irrelevant and confusing.

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 identifies the subject ('common HTTP status codes') but uses the noun 'catalog' rather than a concrete verb, and gives no indication of how the nine input parameters relate to the task. It also does not differentiate the tool from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling; the only clue is the word 'catalog', which leaves trigger conditions implicit.

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