list_redirects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description nonetheless adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: redirects only resolve on the frontend when no published page answers the path, and it enumerates the problem classes the output reports. No pagination or return-format detail, which keeps it below 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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and exposed fields, then the routing semantics, then the filter hint. Every clause carries distinct information with no filler.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (live URL, hit counts, problem categories) and the resolution semantics. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already well documented (site slug/id, targetDocumentId filter). The description still adds interpretive value by framing targetDocumentId as 'which old URLs point at one page', clarifying the intended use beyond the schema's literal wording.

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resource ('List the site's redirect rules') and goes further by naming the returned diagnostics (target-missing, target-unpublished, shadowed, chain, loop). An agent can immediately distinguish this read from siblings create_redirect, update_redirect, delete_redirects and test_redirect.

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?

It gives a semantic context ('rules apply on the frontend ONLY where no published page answers the path') and a param-directed use case ('Pass targetDocumentId to see which old URLs point at one page'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g., versus test_redirect or list_not_found), so selection is only implied.

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