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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about behavior—no mention of read-only nature, side effects, or what the tool returns. The mismatch between description and parameters further obscures 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 sentence, but it's under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information about what the tool does with the inputs, making it inadequate for agent selection.

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 and no output schema, the description is entirely insufficient. An agent cannot determine the tool's function, its inputs' purpose, or when to invoke it. The mismatch between description and schema makes it impossible to use correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, and in fact seems unrelated to them. It doesn't explain how parameters are used, but the schema already describes 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 states it's a catalog of HTTP status codes, but the input schema contains 9 unrelated parameters (e.g., ref, url, city, feed) with no apparent connection to status codes. This is misleading and fails to convey 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. The description gives no context for selection, and the parameter set suggests it might overlap with tools like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone, but no exclusions are provided.

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