extract_content_v2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about whether this performs network fetches, whether it hits live pages or an archive, what 'evidence authority' means operationally, or any rate limits or failure modes.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency. The single sentence is front-loaded with the verb but spends its remaining words on jargon that conveys no actionable information.

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 6-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema documentation, an output schema only relieves the need to describe return values. Everything else an agent needs before calling 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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. The non-obvious parameters mode (default/archive_ingest), caller, domain, free_only, and content_type are left entirely unexplained.

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?

"Extract content" names a verb and resource, but "through the HTTP-v2 evidence authority" is opaque internal jargon that explains nothing. Nothing distinguishes this from the sibling extract_content or from search_web/recover_url, so an agent cannot tell what makes v2 different.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternates named, and no exclusions. With extract_content, recover_url_v2, expand_links_v2, and recover_dead_article as siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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