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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It doesn't mention whether inputs are validated, discarded, or used to filter the catalog. The schema hints at some parameters being discarded after checks, but the description itself gives no behavioral context. This is a significant gap for a tool with side-effect-like behavior.

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, making it concise in length. However, it is not appropriately sized because it lacks substantive content. It is not front-loaded with critical information; instead, it offers a vague statement that fails to guide the agent. The brevity is not a virtue here since it omits essential details.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how the catalog relates to the parameters, what the tool returns, or any side effects. An agent would be unable to use this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. No extra value is provided, but the schema compensates.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' is a noun phrase, not an action. It does not state what the tool does with its inputs. The 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are completely unrelated to HTTP status codes, creating confusion about the tool's actual function. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status, which likely returns status codes for a 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions. Siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok could overlap, but no differentiation is given.

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