tavily-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time results' and 'customizable parameters,' which adds useful context about timeliness and flexibility. However, it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination behavior. The description is not misleading but lacks depth for a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains capabilities and parameters, and the third provides usage context. There is zero waste, and the structure efficiently conveys essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers purpose and high-level usage but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling. Without an output schema, the description does not explain return values, which is a significant omission for a search tool. It is complete enough for basic understanding but insufficient for full operational clarity.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'customizable parameters for result count, content type, and domain filtering,' but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description could have enhanced understanding of parameter interactions.

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: 'A powerful web search tool that provides comprehensive, real-time results using Tavily's AI search engine.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('web content'), and distinguishes from its sibling 'tavily-extract' by focusing on search rather than extraction. The description explicitly mentions what it returns ('relevant web content') and its primary use case ('gathering current information, news, and detailed web content analysis').

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Ideal for gathering current information, news, and detailed web content analysis.' It implies usage scenarios but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. While it distinguishes from 'tavily-extract' by context (search vs. extraction), it lacks explicit guidance on choosing between them or other potential search alternatives.

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