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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the tool resolves the destination "without following it," meaning no request is made to the target. It says nothing about error behavior for invalid or non-wx93 URLs, or about what the resolution result contains.

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?

Two short lines with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler prose. The second line is only service attribution, which is mildly expendable but not harmful.

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-only resolver this is close to sufficient, especially with rich annotations. However, with no output schema, the description never indicates what a successful resolution returns (a URL string, an object, a status), and it omits failure behavior for non-wx93 input, which an agent needs to interpret results.

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%, so the single `url` parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by specifying it must be a wx93.me short link, which constrains accepted input, but adds no format, scheme, or validation detail.

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?

"Where a wx93.me short link goes, without following it" states the resource (a wx93.me short link) and the outcome (its destination), plus a scope qualifier that the target is not fetched. The verb is implicit rather than stated, but the effect is unambiguous. Siblings are unrelated services, so no differentiation is needed.

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 is implied: call this when you hold a wx93.me short link and want its destination. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement about what happens with non-wx93 URLs, and no named alternative. Adequate but leaves the boundary cases to inference.

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