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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the 10-hop limit, 'no auto-redirect' fetch behavior, 5s per-hop timeout, and the exact success/failure return shape. This is substantial transparency, though it doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness or mention service-side rate limits.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, use cases, behavior/result format. No redundant wording, front-loaded with 'Core dossier check'.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema/annotations), the description fully covers purpose, input constraints, behavior, limits, and return format. It is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema covers the domain parameter 100%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the constructed URL starts with https://<domain>/ and clarifies the default path. This provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 traces the full HTTP redirect chain starting from https://<domain>/, recording each hop's status code and destination URL. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling dossier tools like dossier_headers or dossier_cors.

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 lists use cases: debug redirect loops, verify HTTP→HTTPS upgrades, audit link shorteners. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for redirect-related checks.

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