Check Redirect Chain

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes safety; the description adds value by revealing the method (manual redirect), the per-hop output fields, and the built-in detections (loops, long chains, HTTP→HTTPS). No contradiction; it omits potential network latency or partial-result behavior, but these are not critical for selection.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action/scope, return contents, and anomaly detection. No filler or repetition of schema data.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does enough by specifying per-hop fields and the anomalies detected, but it does not specify the exact shape of the result or behavior when maxRedirects is exceeded. This is a minor gap for a relatively simple read-only 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?

Input schema already provides 100% coverage, documenting both url and maxRedirects with types/defaults/constraints. Description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond implying the hop-by-hop nature, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Follow') and resource ('redirect chain of a URL'), explicitly frames the action as hop-by-hop manual redirect, and specifies the outputs (status, Location, Server). This differentiates it clearly from sibling fetch/crawl/link-checking tools.

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 intended context is evident: use when you need to inspect redirect behavior, loops, or protocol upgrades. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the focus is clear enough for an agent to select it over fetch_page or check_links.

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