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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'short catalog' – no mention of side effects, network access, data persistence, or what happens to the input parameters. The agent cannot anticipate whether the tool makes calls, validates, or simply returns static content.

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 sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, it is so brief that it lacks substantive information. It is appropriately sized for a very simple tool but fails to deliver needed context, so structure is acceptable but not exceptional.

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?

With 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how parameters influence output, or any operational details. An agent would have no idea what to pass or what to expect, making this inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a descriptive comment (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but since the schema fully documents each field, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not help explain why these diverse parameters relate to a status-code catalog.

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 states a resource ('catalog of common HTTP status codes') but uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource structure. It does not say what the tool does with its 9 heterogeneous parameters, so the purpose is only vaguely indicated and not differentiated from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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