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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but 'Short catalog' reveals nothing about side effects, return values, error behavior, or what happens with inputs. The schema notes that many parameters are 'discarded', but the tool-level behavior remains completely opaque.

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 it is under-specified rather than deliberately concise. One vague sentence does not earn its place because it fails to convey the tool's purpose or behavior despite the tool having a complex multi-parameter schema.

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?

This is a tool with seven heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only says it is a catalog of HTTP status codes. An agent cannot determine what to pass, what to expect back, or how this differs from related sibling tools, making the definition critically 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?

All seven parameters have individual descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is essentially 100%. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the structured schema already documents each field.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' merely restates what the tool name 'status-catalog' already implies, adding only 'common HTTP'. It lacks a specific verb or action, and with seven unrelated-looking parameters (url, city, feed, host, json, path) it is unclear what the tool actually does with them.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings like fetch-status, normalize-url, or validate-json. The description gives no context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when 'status-catalog' is the appropriate choice.

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