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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool is a 'catalog' and does not reveal what it returns, whether it performs checks, discards inputs, or has side effects. The schema hints at 'discarded after the shape check' but the description never explains the operational behavior, leaving the agent entirely in the dark.

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, achieving efficiency. However, it is under-specified: the sentence conveys a noun phrase rather than an actionable instruction, and the brevity works against clarity. It is concise but not effective, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. The schema hints at multiple distinct checks (URL normalization, JSON validation, path checking, timezone, etc.) but the description does not explain how these combine or what the agent should expect. An agent cannot call this tool correctly without far more context.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters and provide individual meanings (e.g., 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'), so a baseline of 3 is warranted. However, the tool description fails to integrate these into a coherent purpose, and the parameters seem unrelated to 'HTTP status codes.' The description adds no value beyond the schema and does not clarify how to select parameters to get the desired output, lowering the score below baseline.

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 is a 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which names a resource (HTTP status codes) but lacks a verb describing what action the tool performs. It doesn't explain how the nine optional parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) relate to this catalog, leaving the actual purpose ambiguous and failing 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context for selecting it over fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent has no basis for choosing this tool.

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