Redirect Trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing the analysis behavior: it flags loops, temporary redirects, non-HTTPS endpoints, and reports hop-by-hop status codes. The Returns section also discloses the exact payload shape, which is beyond annotation coverage. No contradictions with annotations.

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 structured with an opening behavioral sentence, an Args block, a Returns block, and an example. The Args and Returns blocks largely duplicate what is already in the input and output schemas, making the description longer than necessary. However, the example is helpful, and the structure is clear. Overall, it would benefit from trimming redundancy.

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 has only two parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the purpose, the analysis flags, and gives an example. It doesn't cover errors or alternative tool selection, but that is not crucial for this low-complexity tool. The description is largely complete 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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description's Args section merely restates the names and types without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the description does not need to compensate, and it doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics 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 uses a specific verb ('Follow') and resource ('a URL's redirect chain'), clearly stating it reports each status code and target. It also lists specific issues it flags (long chains, loops, temporary redirects), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_audit or link_audit.

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 provides clear context for use: it helps identify redirect-related issues such as long chains wasting crawl budget and improper temporary redirects. The example query 'Where does http://example.com/old-page end up?' illustrates a direct use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full guidance.

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