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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention any side effects or operational details, and the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check', 'public weather hint') suggest a multi-purpose check tool that contradicts the stated catalog purpose. This mismatch leaves the agent without a reliable model of the tool's behavior.

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, but it is under-specified and lacks any structure conveying usage or purpose. It is not front-loaded with critical information and provides no actionable guidance.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or what behavior to expect. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided definition.

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 tool description adds nothing beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions themselves are internally inconsistent with the 'status codes' theme, and the description fails to reconcile them. The agent cannot infer how parameters map to the tool's function.

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 is a noun phrase ('Short catalog of common HTTP status codes') with no verb or action, making it unclear what the tool actually does. The nine input parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are unrelated to HTTP status codes, creating confusion about the tool's true function. It does not differentiate 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned. The description provides zero context for invocation.

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