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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the artifact ('short catalog') and says nothing about side effects, read-only behavior, output format, or that several input parameters are discarded.

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 very short, but the brevity comes from omission rather than careful economy. A six-word sentence is not enough for a tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema.

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?

Given the high parameter count, absent annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine a valid invocation, understand what the parameters do, or know what response to expect from this definition alone.

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?

All 8 parameters are described in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%; the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify how ref, url, city, feed, host, json, or path relate to an HTTP status code catalog, but the schema already documents each parameter individually.

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 identifies the resource as 'a short catalog of common HTTP status codes,' which narrows what the tool is about. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so it never states whether the tool returns, explains, or compiles the catalog, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools 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 instead of fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or other siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or example contexts are given, leaving the agent to guess the intended use case.

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