http_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description's 'look up' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It adds valuable context by revealing the output categories (meaning, category, usage). For such a simple lookup tool, no further behavioral disclosure is necessary.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every phrase ('meaning', 'category', 'common usage') adds value and collectively communicates the tool's functionality 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 simple lookup tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the purpose and the kind of result the user can expect, making it complete for its complexity.

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 fully documents the single 'code' parameter with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 the specific verb 'look up' with the resource 'HTTP status code' and explicitly lists the provided information (meaning, category, common usage). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which handle unrelated data types.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving details about HTTP status codes, which is a distinct use case among siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool or mention any exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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