lookup_http_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'descriptions and categories,' implying read-only behavior. However, it does not detail any side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. For a simple lookup, this is minimally adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences containing all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and follows with parameter guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity, a single parameter, and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents the return format), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand and 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds essential meaning: 'code — HTTP status code (e.g. 404). Leave 0 for all codes.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and usage beyond the schema's minimal type and default.

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 tool's purpose: 'Look up HTTP status code descriptions and categories.' It uses a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('HTTP status code descriptions and categories'), and it is distinct from sibling tools which are mostly utilities for calculations, text processing, and data conversion.

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 provides usage guidance by explaining the parameter: 'code — HTTP status code (e.g. 404). Leave 0 for all codes.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (to get info on a specific code or all codes). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear for such a specific tool.

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