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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only claims a 'catalog of common HTTP status codes' but does not state what the tool does with the parameters, what it returns, whether it has side effects, or any other behavioral traits. The schema hints at 'shape checks' and 'discarded' data, but the description is silent on all of this, leaving the agent completely in the dark.

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, which is concise in length, but it is severely under-specified. It does not front-load any actionable information about the tool's operation or inputs. This is not conciseness but rather an absence of specification, providing no structure or prioritization of key details.

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, no required fields, no output schema, and a one-sentence description, the tool is completely inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly. There is no explanation of what inputs to provide, what the tool does with them, or what the response will contain. The description is far too thin for the complexity of the schema and the ambiguity of its purpose.

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 the baseline is 3, but the tool description adds zero meaning to the parameters. It does not even acknowledge that parameters exist. The schema descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') are the only source of information, yet they do not align with the catalog purpose, making it unclear how to use them. The description fails to bridge the gap between the claimed purpose and the actual inputs.

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 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' which names a resource and an action, but it does not connect the 9 input parameters to that catalog. The parameters (ref, url, city, json, path, etc.) appear to be inputs for validation or normalization tasks, yet the description gives no clue how they relate to returning a catalog of status codes. This is vague and fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over siblings like browser-url-ok or validate-json. No exclusions or alternatives are cited.

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