http_status_lookup

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds what the tool returns (name, description, common causes, fix, RFC reference) and its coverage (standard + Cloudflare codes). It does not mention error handling, but for a read-only lookup this is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant words. The action is front-loaded, and the return contents and scope are stated efficiently.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its coverage. It lacks details on invalid-code handling, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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%: the only parameter, code, has a clear type and description with examples (404, 429, 502). The tool description adds the 'HTTP status code' context but no additional semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('HTTP status code'), and enumerates the returned content (name, description, common causes, how to fix, RFC reference). This clearly differentiates it from all sibling tools, none of which perform HTTP status lookups.

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 purpose is so evident that when to use the tool is implied: whenever someone needs details on an HTTP status code. No alternatives are mentioned because no sibling tool competes, so the lack of an explicit 'when not to use' is acceptable given the context.

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