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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing, but it does not state whether the tool has side effects, what it returns, or why several parameters are marked as 'discarded after' checks, leaving important behavioral ambiguity.

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, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It conveys only a noun phrase and provides no actionable guidance, so it 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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what input to provide, whether any parameters are required, or what response 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 seven parameters, so the schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no information about which parameters are relevant to the catalog or how they affect the result.

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 names the resource (common HTTP status codes) and identifies the tool as a short catalog, so the general domain is clear. However, it lacks a verb or any statement of what the tool does with inputs; it reads more like a restatement of the tool name than a functional description.

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 usage guidance at all. The description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, and the seven parameters in the schema are left unexplained, so an agent cannot determine when to choose status-catalog over sibling tools like fetch-status.

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