http_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns meaning, category, and usage guidance, which is a basic disclosure of behavior. However, it does not describe the format of the response, any potential variations in output, or whether the tool performs any side effects. This is adequate for a read-only lookup but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose language.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete: it tells the user what inputs are expected (via schema) and what outputs to expect (meaning, category, usage guidance). It does not elaborate on the structure of the output, but for a simple lookup, this is sufficient.

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 already documents the single parameter 'code' with a clear description and examples (e.g., 404, 502), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Look up') and the resource ('HTTP status code'), with specific outputs ('meaning, category, usage guidance'). It is distinct from sibling tools, which cover regex, hashing, encoding, etc., so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies usage: when you need information about an HTTP status code. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple lookup utility, the implied context is acceptable but not explicit.

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