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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals no side effects, return value, or operational behavior; the noun phrase 'short catalog' implies a read-only result but never states what happens when parameters are supplied. The schema's hints that many parameters are 'discarded' are not reflected in the tool description, leaving the 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 short sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally concise. However, it is so terse that it skirts under-specification rather than effective communication; it conveys less than an agent needs to act confidently.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and seven confusing parameters, this one-sentence description is far from complete. It does not tell the agent what the tool returns, whether any input affects the result, or how it relates to neighboring tools. The definition is inadequate for reliable selection and invocation.

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 documents all seven parameters with descriptions, and several explicitly state that the value is discarded or has no effect, which provides some invocation guidance. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning and does not explain why these unrelated parameters exist for a status-code catalog. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is high, but the semantic mismatch prevents a higher score.

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', essentially restates the tool name without a clear verb or action. It identifies the resource (HTTP status codes) but not what an agent should do with the tool, and the schema's unrelated parameters further confuse the intended operation. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like fetch-status or domain-shape.

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 the sibling alternatives. The description mentions no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, so an agent cannot determine the appropriate context for invoking it.

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