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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Short catalog' implies a read-only informational output, but it does not state that inputs are effectively ignored, that no side effects occur, or what the return shape will be.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core subject without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple catalog tool.

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?

Despite the simple purpose, the tool has seven unrelated-looking input parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description alone does not explain whether any parameters should be provided or how the catalog relates to them, leaving an agent with insufficient invocation context.

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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already explains each field, even noting that values are discarded after checks.

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 clear resource: a short catalog of common HTTP status codes. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like fetch-status by indicating this is a reference catalog rather than a status checker, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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, nor any mention of whether the seven input parameters are needed or optional. The schema hints that most parameters are discarded after checks, but the description itself gives no usage context.

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