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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description does not state whether the tool makes network calls, accesses the filesystem, is read-only, or what side effects occur. It also does not explain what the output is. For a tool with parameters like 'url', 'feed', 'host', and 'path', the lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It states a noun phrase rather than an actionable instruction. It is not front-loaded with the key information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly; it is merely a vague label.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter in the context of the tool, what the tool returns, or any usage context. An agent cannot determine what inputs to provide or what to expect as a result. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter individually documented (e.g., 'url' for HTTPS URL to normalize or cite, 'json' to validate). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond these schema descriptions and does not explain how the parameters contribute to a 'catalog'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already defines each parameter, but the description fails to tie them together.

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 says 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' but does not state what action the tool performs. It does not explain how the nine input parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) relate to a catalog of status codes. The verb is absent; it reads as a noun phrase rather than a function. This is ambiguous and fails to distinguish it from siblings like fetch-status or validate-json.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., fetch-status, normalize-url, validate-json, timezone). There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent has no basis to decide if this tool is appropriate for a given task.

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