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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Short catalog' without explaining what it does with the inputs, what it returns, or any side effects. The parameter descriptions hint at checks (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but the tool's overall behavior remains opaque.

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 only one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no structure, front-loading of key facts, or elaboration that would help an agent decide to use it. The brevity comes at the cost of essential information.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description is a single vague phrase. It does not explain what the tool does with the parameters, what a successful call looks like, or any behavioral context. It is grossly incomplete for a tool of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a clear description. The tool description itself adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high coverage. However, it does not tie the parameters to the stated 'catalog' purpose.

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 a clear verb or resource. It is a noun phrase, and the 9 unrelated input parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) make the actual operation unclear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or domain-shape.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when it is appropriate or when another sibling (e.g., fetch-status) would be better. The description offers zero contextual routing.

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