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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Changes nothing' is largely redundant with the structured fields. However, the description adds the 90-day retention window and describes the returned content (batches plus their redirects and undo status), which the annotations do not cover and which matters given there is no output schema.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and time window, then the return shape, then the safety note. Every clause carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, time window, and returned fields adequately. It stops short of noting pagination/result limits or explicitly tying the 'undone' status to the redirects_undo sibling, which would have made it fully complete.

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%, so both parameters (site, server) are already documented in the schema, including the 'optional when...' conditions. The description only implies site scoping via 'on a site' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific resource (batches of redirects written) with a clear scope (last 90 days) and content shape (each with its redirects and undo status). It distinguishes itself implicitly from redirects_list/redirects_find by being the historical view, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives. With redirects_list, redirects_find, redirects_apply, and redirects_undo as siblings, the agent gets no signal about when this history view is preferable to, say, redirects_list. Usage is only implied by the word 'history'.

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