lookup_http_status

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotations. While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, the description fails to mention what information is returned (e.g., status code meaning, category, description). No output schema exists, so the agent gains no understanding of the tool's response structure.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it is minimally informative and could be improved by front-loading key details such as optionality of the parameter or typical return format. It is not wasteful but also not optimally structured.

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 lack of output schema, the description should explain what data is returned. It does not specify whether the tool returns details like phrase, description, or category. For a simple lookup tool, this is a significant gap. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 covers the single parameter 'code' with a description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, 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 states 'Get information about HTTP status codes', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'HTTP status codes'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling lookup tools like 'lookup_mime_types' or 'lookup_port_numbers', which have similar phrasing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusionary conditions. An agent would have no information about when this tool is appropriate.

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