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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states that the tool is a 'catalog', implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose output format, whether parameters are ignored, or what 'Short' means in terms of coverage. The parameter descriptions mention values being discarded, but that information is in the schema, not the tool description.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core idea, though it could have used a stronger verb. It earns its place but is too sparse to fully serve the agent alone.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot confidently determine how to invoke the tool, what response to expect, or how it differs from the many sibling validation and fetch tools. The presence of seven input properties with 'discarded' semantics makes this gap more significant.

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 provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. However, the tool description does nothing to explain how these seemingly unrelated parameters relate to an HTTP status catalog, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance on what value should be supplied. The parameter descriptions add little semantic clarity, as most are described only as being discarded.

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 resource (HTTP status codes) and the tool's nature as a 'short catalog', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch-status that perform live requests. However, it lacks a clear verb such as 'list' or 'look up', leaving some ambiguity about whether it returns a static list or filters by input.

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 such as fetch-status or domain-shape. The description does not state what role the many input parameters play or whether the tool is a fallback reference when other tools are unavailable.

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