seo_get_redirect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read with no side effects, but nothing states the return shape, what happens when the id does not exist, or whether the site must be accessible. For a no-annotation tool this is thin.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero waste. It is efficiently sized, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than editorial tightness.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the minimum is arguably met. Still missing is any note on not-found behavior or that it is a read-only sibling to create/update/delete redirect tools.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the pointer to list_sites for the site id. The description adds no meaning beyond 'by id', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Get a redirect by id'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like seo_list_redirects or seo_get_post_seo, and 'redirect by id' is the only scoping detail given.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus seo_list_redirects (list all) or seo_update_redirect/seo_delete_redirect. The agent must infer that this is the single-item read path from the name alone.

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