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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the catalog is 'short' and 'common,' with no information about side effects, return format, pagination, or how the eight input parameters are handled.

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, but the brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single noun phrase fails to carry the operational information an agent needs, so the sentence does not earn its place.

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 eight unrelated-looking parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several potentially overlapping sibling tools, this description is far too incomplete. An agent cannot reliably know which input to provide or what result to expect.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all eight parameters, so the baseline is 3 despite the description offering no parameter guidance. However, the description does not clarify how parameters like city, feed, or path relate to HTTP status codes, leaving meaningful ambiguity that the schema alone does not resolve.

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 a noun phrase, 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' that essentially restates the tool name without an explicit verb or action. It does not explain what an agent can do with this tool or how it differs from overlapping siblings 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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as fetch-status and validate-json overlap conceptually, but the description never mentions them or provides selection criteria.

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