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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond the annotations: that only permanent redirects are covered and that only the current revision is returned rather than revision history. It omits not-found/error behavior, which matters for a by-id read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope come first. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves the tool under-specified rather than optimally tight.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level (one redirect plus current revision). With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, however, an agent still lacks the id format and the behavior when the redirect does not exist.

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 0% — the single `id` parameter has an empty description — so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never says whether `id` is a numeric key, a UUID, or the redirect's source path, nor what format it takes. Only "one permanent redirect" weakly implies the id selects a redirect.

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?

"Read one permanent redirect and its current revision" gives a specific verb (read), a specific resource (permanent redirect), and cardinality (one), which implicitly separates it from list_redirects and from the mutating create/update/delete_redirect siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only hint is the word "one", which implies an id is already known, but nothing tells the agent to call list_redirects first to obtain that id, or how this differs from get_published/render_published for published content.

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