Analyze redirects

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context: the untrusted-data warning about site-derived text (titles, headers, DNS, file contents) not being instructions, which is a security-relevant behavior annotations cannot express. It omits request volume/rate considerations, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by usage triggers and then the safety note. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

No output schema exists, and the description conveys the analysis performed, the trigger context, and the trust boundary for returned data. It does not describe the response shape (e.g., hop list or final canonical URL), which is a minor gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by framing the variant checks as a core outcome ('all converge on one canonical URL'), which explains why check_variants defaults to true. It does not restate syntax, which the schema already handles.

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 ('Follows the redirect chain of a URL hop by hop') plus the exact checks performed (http→https upgrade, www/non-www convergence). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like http_probe or dns_lookup.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: 'after a migration' and 'when pages redirect too many times'. It does not name an alternative sibling tool or explicitly exclude cases, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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