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

There are no annotations. The description implies a read-only catalog but does not explicitly state side effects, parameter handling, output behavior, or rate limits. Schema descriptions hint that inputs are discarded, but the tool description itself is silent.

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 with minimal fluff and is easy to read. However, it is only a noun phrase and lacks any structured usage information.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters are used, or when to choose it.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions, but none relate to HTTP status codes; they describe unrelated placeholders (git ref, URL, city, etc.) and phrases like 'discarded after shape check' add confusion rather than actionable meaning.

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 names the resource ('HTTP status codes') but lacks an explicit verb; 'catalog' is a noun phrase, so the action is only inferable. It distinguishes the tool from siblings only vaguely.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status or web-fetch. The description gives no selection criteria or context.

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