seo_redirect_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the behavior (following and analyzing redirects) and lists detected issue types, but it does not clarify side effects, network behavior, or what happens when maxRedirects is exceeded.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and key outcomes are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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 covers the tool's core behavior and output categories, but with no output schema and no annotation context, an agent still lacks details about the return shape and maxRedirects edge-case behavior. Adequate for a simple check tool, but not complete.

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 only describes the 'url' parameter, leaving maxRedirects without explanation. The description adds general context about following redirect chains but does not clarify the meaning or consequence of maxRedirects, so the 50% schema coverage gap is not compensated.

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?

States a specific action ('Follow and analyze') and a clear resource ('redirect chains'), with concrete outputs (loops, long chains, mixed protocol issues). This clearly distinguishes it from SEO sibling tools like seo_canonical_check and seo_sitemap_analyze.

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 should be used for redirect chain analysis, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Context makes the intended use fairly clear, though no routing guidance is given.

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