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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the non-redirect behavior, which is a meaningful behavioral trait not in the annotations. It aligns with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, and the alternative is mentioned in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, single-parameter transformation tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the operation, the specific parameters removed, and the redirect caveat. No output schema exists, but the behavior is simple enough that an agent can predict the result.

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 coverage for the single parameter is 100%; the schema description already states the parameter's purpose and examples. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('Removes 60+ known tracking parameters from a URL and returns the clean URL') and immediately differentiates from a sibling by naming redirect_trace as the alternative for following redirects. An agent can distinguish it from the large sibling list without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says 'Does not follow redirects; for that, use redirect_trace,' which provides a clear when-not-to-use condition and names the alternative. This is above the bar for usage guidance.

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