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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'catalog' and does not disclose that parameters appear to be discarded (as implied by schema descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check'), what the output format is, or whether the tool has side effects. The description leaves the tool's behavior opaque.

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 clearly front-loads the tool's core purpose. It is appropriately concise for a reference catalog, though it omits detail that might be needed for such a parameter-heavy tool. No waste, but under-specification prevents a 5.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only states the catalog purpose, failing to explain what parameters do, what the return value looks like, or how the tool should be invoked. An agent cannot determine what to pass or what to expect, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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 all nine parameters have descriptions, meeting the baseline. However, the tool description adds no parameter meaning; it doesn't connect the parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) to the HTTP status catalog, leaving an agent unclear on which, if any, to supply. The schema descriptions themselves are detailed but unrelated to the catalog's purpose.

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, specific purpose: a short catalog of common HTTP status codes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fetch-status or browser-url-ok, which likely fetch live statuses, whereas this is a static reference catalog.

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 alternatives. The description doesn't mention whether to use it for reference, learning, or debugging, nor does it exclude live status checking. An agent must infer the intended context from the purpose alone.

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