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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real substance beyond them: the response shape (redirect_to plus result: "redirect"), the fact that the historical comparison body is NOT returned, and the 404 behavior for unknown or retired tokens. The one opaque phrase is "Cache-only," which is not explained but plausibly hints at caching/eventual-consistency behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by response contract and error behavior. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With a full output schema and rich annotations, the description only needs to add the non-obvious bits (no body returned, 404 on unknown tokens) and it does. A brief note on what to do with redirect_to next, or what "Cache-only" implies, would close the loop.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single snapshot_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where the token comes from. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb+resource pair: resolve a historical shared-comparison token to its canonical comparison slug. That scope is distinct from listing/browsing siblings. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the similarly named lianex_resolve_compare, which an agent could reasonably confuse with this one.

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?

Usage context is implied by the call site (a token from a /s/<token> link, which the schema already explains) and by the note that a successful response contains a redirect_to. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to lianex_resolve_compare or lianex_browse_by_slug for the next step.

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