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 says 'Short catalog' and gives no indication of side effects, permissions, discard behavior, or output format. The schema parameter descriptions mention 'discarded after the shape check,' but the description itself adds no behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence), but it is under-specified and lacks structure. It does not front-load any actionable information and omits critical details about the tool's operation. Brevity without substance is not effective conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose in relation to its parameters, expected input/output, or any usage scenarios. An agent would have no way to correctly invoke this tool based on the description 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. However, the description adds no meaning beyond that, and the parameter descriptions themselves (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') do not connect to the stated purpose of HTTP status codes. The tool's description fails to explain how these parameters relate to its function, leaving the agent to guess.

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 a resource ('common HTTP status codes') and a verb ('catalog'), but the input schema contains nine parameters unrelated to HTTP status codes (e.g., 'ref', 'url', 'city'). The purpose is ambiguous and misaligned with the actual parameters, making it unclear what the tool truly does. It is not a tautology, but it fails to convey a coherent, specific function.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus any of the 27 siblings (e.g., fetch-status, normalize-url, validate-json). There is no mention of context, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving an agent without any routing information.

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