sanitize_url_redirect_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does a good job by revealing the follow/unpack behavior, the types of URLs handled, the canonical-safe-destination outcome, and the 0.01 USDC Base L2 cost. It still omits details like network behavior, error cases, or safety policy, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 information-dense sentence with a short, useful cost parenthetical. It front-loads the core behavior and result, contains no filler, and every phrase contributes meaning.

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 gives the essential purpose, target input types, and cost, but there is no output schema and the return value is only described as 'canonical safe destination' without specifying its structure or format. It also does not mention failure behavior, timeouts, or what happens with unreachable or malicious URLs, leaving some practical ambiguity for an agent making an automated call.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond the cost note for paymentSignature and does not explain how to structure the payload or how payment settlement works. This meets the baseline but adds no significant semantic depth.

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 names a specific verb ('follows and unpacks') and a concrete resource ('recursive redirects, tracking pixel URLs, and affiliate shortlinks'), and states the output ('canonical safe destination'). This clearly differentiates it from every sibling tool, none of which target URL redirect sanitization.

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 when to use the tool (whenever a URL redirect chain needs to be resolved and sanitized) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tool references. Usage context is evident from the description and tool name, but exclusions or routing cues are absent.

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