webdev_http_status_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool is 'Pure offline reference, read-only, contacts no network, and is rate-limited,' which confirms and extends the annotations with additional behavioral details (offline, rate-limited). No contradictions.

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 three well-structured sentences: first sentence states purpose and what is looked up; second explains usage modes with parameters; third notes behavior (offline, read-only, rate-limited) and return format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown but referenced), 100% schema description coverage, and only 5 optional parameters, the description fully covers functionality, usage modes, behavioral traits, and return structure. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, baseline 3. The description explains that 'code selects one status,' 'category filters to one class,' and 'search matches code/name/description/use-case text,' adding semantic context beyond the schema field descriptions. It also clarifies that 'includeExamples' is accepted for compatibility but examples are always present.

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 clearly states it is an HTTP status code reference tool for looking up codes by number, name, category, etc. It is distinct from sibling tools which are converters, generators, or other utilities; no direct overlap exists, so differentiation is inherent.

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?

The description explains how to use the tool: pass no body for full table, or narrow by code, category, or search. It also notes it is offline and read-only, providing safe usage context. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, though sibling tools do not compete.

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