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

The description implies a read-only catalog but does not explain outputs, side effects, or whether inputs are actually used. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and falls short.

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 redundant wording or filler. It is maximally concise for the information it conveys.

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 description does not explain how the nine optional parameters relate to the tool, what the output format is, or what 'catalog' means in practice. Given no output schema and irrelevant-looking parameters, meaningful context is missing.

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 every parameter has a schema description, the parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) appear unrelated to an HTTP status code catalog. The description adds no clarifying meaning to these inputs.

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 tool as a short catalog of common HTTP status codes, so the basic resource is clear. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like fetch-status.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or web-fetch. The description gives no conditions, examples, or exclusions.

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