tavily-extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'retrieves and processes raw content,' which implies read-only behavior, but does not specify rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'processes' entails (e.g., formatting, filtering). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. It uses two sentences efficiently to cover functionality and ideal use cases without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines, but overall it's well-sized and avoids waste.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits, errors), output format, and deeper usage contexts. For a tool that extracts web content, which can involve complexities like handling dynamic pages or authentication, the description does not provide enough information for an agent to use it effectively without additional context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the implications of 'basic' vs 'advanced' extraction or when to include images). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'retrieves and processes raw content from specified URLs' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from the sibling 'tavily-search' by focusing on extraction rather than search, though the distinction could be more explicit. The description is not tautological and provides meaningful context about use cases.

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 description implies usage through phrases like 'ideal for data collection, content analysis, and research tasks,' which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over 'tavily-search' or any alternatives, and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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