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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output structure (redirect chains with fields and linked_from pages) and clarifies it applies to the last audit, but it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, mention any side effects, or note any limitations such as pagination behavior. As a 'get' tool, it's likely safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with the main content front-loaded. It includes useful context about the linked_from field and its relationship to get_audit_issues without any fluff. It's well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns and its purpose, but it lacks parameter guidance and doesn't mention pagination behavior. For a paginated list tool with no output schema, it is partially complete but misses some useful context an agent would need to call it correctly (e.g., what limit/offset control, or that results are from the most recent audit).

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 only 33% (only project_id has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics; it doesn't explain the purpose or format of limit or offset beyond their schema constraints (min/max). With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 clearly states the tool's function: returning redirect chains from the last audit, listing specific fields (initial URL, hop, final destination, status, loop) and the linked_from pages. It also ties it to the errors_redirect counter of get_audit_issues, making its purpose and relationship to siblings unambiguous.

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 implies it is used for detailed redirect chain data behind the errors_redirect counter, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it instead of related tools like get_audit_issues or get_audit_pages. It provides context but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions any alternatives.

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