One redirect is fine. Three in a row, built up over years of small changes nobody tracked, is a different problem entirely.
Nobody sets out to build a redirect chain. It happens one small decision at a time: a URL structure changes during a redesign, then changes again during a platform migration, then again when a page gets renamed for clarity. Each change adds one more redirect on top of the last, and each one, on its own, looks harmless.
A browser follows the whole chain instantly and shows the visitor the final page. Nobody clicking the link ever notices there were three hops in between. That's exactly why chains survive for years without anyone catching them.
A crawler has a budget for how much of your site it's willing to fetch in a given period. Every extra hop in a redirect chain spends part of that budget on overhead instead of on the content you actually want indexed. Long chains also dilute the value passed through each redirect, and at some point, Google may simply stop following the chain before it reaches the final page.
A redirect chain is invisible to a visitor and expensive to a crawler. Those are two very different audiences with two very different tolerances for it.
Point every redirect directly at its final destination. One hop, not a chain. It's a small, mechanical fix once you've found the chains, and it's the kind of thing that never shows up on a casual site review because everything still appears to work.
If any of this sounds familiar, I run the same kind of audit for real businesses.