recover_url_v2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether this is a read or write, whether it mutates any state, what permissions or rate limits apply, or what "evidence authority" actually does; the only clue is the vague word "recover".

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 a single short sentence, so it is not bloated, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the one sentence is mostly opaque terminology and conveys almost 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 tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and several near-duplicate siblings, the description is far from complete enough to invoke correctly. The output schema helps with return values, but nothing explains the operation itself or the alternatives.

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% across four parameters (url, title, caller, domain), and the description explains none of them. There is no hint about the format of url, the purpose of caller/domain, or how title is used, so the description adds nothing.

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?

The description names a verb ("Recover") and resource ("URL"), but "recover" is left undefined and "HTTP-v2 evidence authority" is unexplained jargon. It gives no basis for distinguishing this from the sibling recover_url or recover_dead_article, so an agent cannot tell which tool to pick.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (recover_url, recover_dead_article, expand_links_v2) is the alternative. A nearly identical non-v2 sibling exists and is never mentioned.

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