lookup_http_code

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose one important behavioral trait: the tool costs $0.001 USDC via x402. This is valuable for the agent to know before invocation. However, it says nothing about the tool's read/write nature, side effects, or required authentication beyond payment.

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 very short, which is concise, but the phrase 'lookup http code' is a tautology with the tool name and wastes space. The cost information is useful, but the structure does not front-load the key purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what input it expects and what output it returns. It does neither, making it incomplete even for a simple lookup tool.

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 schema only provides a generic 'params' object with the description 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which is not informative. The tool description adds no details about how to specify an HTTP code (e.g., as a number or string), so the agent has no parameter guidance.

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 'lookup http code' merely restates the tool name without explaining what the tool actually does—whether it returns the meaning of an HTTP status code, lists codes, or something else. It doesn't distinguish from sibling lookup tools like lookup_html_entity or lookup_mime_type.

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 on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. Only a vague category label ('Other Utilities tool') and the cost are given, leaving the agent to guess appropriate usage.

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