check_redirects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses what the tool does: traces chains, flags one-hop violations, loops, and error responses. It could add operational details like network cost or rate limits, but the core behavior is 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the main behavior is front-loaded. The second sentence supplies a practical trigger for use. Every part earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. It does not fully cover input format details, but the missing information is minor given the low complexity and available output schema.

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 0%, and the description adds little about the 'urls' parameter beyond saying 'for each URL.' It does not clarify expected URL format (absolute vs relative), whether schemes are required, or any limits on list length, so the agent gets almost no parameter guidance beyond the bare schema type.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Trace the redirect chain for each URL' and names concrete detection outcomes (long chains, loops, 4xx/5xx). This is distinct from siblings like fetch_sitemap or audit_urls, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 explicitly says 'Use after a site migration or a URL-structure change,' which gives a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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