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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the catalog is 'short' and 'common'. It does not describe side effects, return format, error behavior, or why parameters like 'ref' and 'json' are 'discarded after the shape check'.

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 short and front-loaded, but 'short catalog' is filler and the overall definition is too thin to be useful. It reads more like a subtitle than an operational tool description.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what input to provide, what output to expect, or whether the tool is a safe read-only lookup.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and actually creates a semantic mismatch by suggesting a static catalog while the parameters imply validation or normalization behavior.

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 is essentially a noun-phrase restatement of the name ('status-catalog' -> 'catalog of status codes'), only adding 'HTTP' and 'common'. It does not specify the operation (list, return, explain, validate), and the seven unrelated input parameters make the intended purpose more confusing rather than clearer.

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 status-catalog instead of sibling tools such as fetch-status, domain-shape, or validate-json. No alternatives, exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions are mentioned.

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