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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about side effects, return values, or how parameters are processed. The schema hints at 'discarded after the shape check' but the description itself is silent.

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 short, which is structurally concise, but it is under-specified. It doesn't earn its length because it omits essential information about usage and behavior.

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, no output schema, and no annotation, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or any constraints. An agent cannot correctly invoke it.

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 coverage is 100% so each parameter has a description, but the descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check' has no connection to HTTP status codes). The tool description adds no meaning and fails to reconcile the mismatch.

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' – it identifies a resource but no verb or action. It doesn't explain how the tool is invoked or what it does with the 9 optional parameters, which appear unrelated to status codes. The purpose is vague and not clearly distinguished 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many siblings, the agent gets no hint about selection.

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