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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Short catalog'. It does not disclose that parameters are discarded after shape checks, what the return value looks like, or whether the tool has side effects. The term 'catalog' implies read-only, but the schema hints at validation behavior that the description never acknowledges.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with this many parameters.

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?

For a tool with seven parameters and no output schema or annotations, a seven-word description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters are used, or how it relates to sibling tools. An agent would be unable to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all seven parameters with 100% coverage, so the structural data already explains each parameter. The description adds no meaning about how parameters relate to the catalog, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'status-catalog' rather than a verb-driven statement of what the tool does. It does not say whether it returns a list, accepts queries, or validates inputs, and the unrelated input parameters (url, city, json, path) create substantial ambiguity about the actual purpose.

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 about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as fetch-status or domain-shape. The description does not provide any context, exclusions, or alternative suggestions, leaving an agent to guess the appropriate invocation context.

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