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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it does not download the full body, and it states exactly what it returns. This is sufficient for a simple read-only tool, though it omits edge-case behaviors like handling redirect loops or invalid URLs.

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 a single, concise sentence that fully communicates the tool's function and output without redundancy. Every word adds value, and it is well-structured.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, the constraint (no body download), and the return value. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only mentions 'URL' generically, adding no detail beyond the schema's 'url' property with format 'uri'. For the single parameter, the schema already defines it, but the description should clarify expectations (e.g., absolute URL, redirect behavior), which it does not.

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 verb 'resolve' and the resource 'redirect chain for a URL', and specifies the output ('final URL + redirect count'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'check', 'classify', and 'diff' by focusing specifically on redirect resolution.

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 the tool is used to follow and resolve redirects without downloading the body, which gives clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to guide appropriate use.

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