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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It does not reveal that the tool accepts seven disparate optional parameters, whether the operation is read-only, what the return value is, or that parameters are 'discarded' as noted in the schema. The agent cannot anticipate the tool's 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 six-word sentence with no fluff, so it is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It front-loads the resource type but only restates the name, providing no additional context that earns 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 is a seven-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about how the parameters affect the catalog, what the tool returns, or when to call it. An agent cannot determine correct usage from this 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 seven parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no meaning about how parameters like 'ref', 'city', or 'json' relate to an HTTP status catalog, and does not clarify which parameters are relevant to the catalog lookup. It neither improves nor harms parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool provides a 'short catalog of common HTTP status codes', which identifies the resource but uses no action verb (e.g., 'returns' or 'lists'). It essentially restates the tool name with the qualifiers 'short' and 'common', so it borders on a tautology and does not distinguish the tool from siblings 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, domain-shape, or validate-json. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without routing information.

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