recover_url

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

With no annotations, description should disclose behavior thoroughly. It only says 'recover' without explaining what that entails (e.g., fetching from archive, requesting redirection, or requiring authentication).

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but could be expanded to cover parameters and behavior without becoming verbose.

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 annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not address what happens after recovery, error conditions, or output structure, despite an output schema existing.

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 0%, and description does not explain any parameters beyond implying 'url' is the target URL. The optional 'title' and 'domain' parameters are not mentioned, leaving their purpose ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool recovers dead, moved, or unavailable URLs. It uses a specific verb and resource. While it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'recover_dead_article', the focus on URL is implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recover_dead_article' or 'extract_content'. No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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