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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says it is a catalog, implying a read-only operation, but it does not state that it makes no network calls, that it is safe, or that it discards input. The parameter schema notes parameters are discarded, but the description itself offers no such transparency.

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 fluff, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it omits essential context, so while the structure is efficient, it does not fully 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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a minimal purpose and no details on how to use the parameters, what the catalog contains, or what the response looks like. This is grossly inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. However, the description adds no meaning about how these parameters relate to the catalog's output. The parameters seem unrelated to HTTP status codes, and the description does not clarify whether they are ignored or influence the result, leaving the agent confused about what to pass.

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 states that the tool provides a short catalog of common HTTP status codes, which is a clear resource. However, it lacks any detail about how the input parameters affect the catalog, and it does not differentiate the tool from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch. The purpose is identifiable but under-specified.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context for selecting it over similar tools like fetch-status or validate-json, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent receives zero routing help.

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