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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only says it is a catalog and does not describe side effects, output format, or what happens to the 9 input parameters. The schema descriptions mention discarding inputs, but that is not in the tool description, leaving the agent unaware of any read-only or destructive nature.

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 wasted words, but it is under-specified. It lacks enough substance to be considered well-structured for a tool with 9 parameters, though it is front-loaded with the core concept.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain how the parameters relate to the catalog and what the return value looks like. The current description is far too minimal to be complete for such a complex tool.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a general idea of the purpose but is vague about how inputs are used. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which also deal with statuses. A specific verb and resource are missing.

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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools like fetch-status, web-fetch, and validate-json, the lack of usage direction is a clear gap.

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