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 are useful, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response structure looks like. The description provides basic behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core functionality and key features, while the second sentence provides usage context. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and high-level capabilities well, but given the parameter complexity and absence of annotations, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'customizable parameters for result count, content type, and domain filtering' which aligns with some parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs 'web search' using 'Tavily's AI search engine' and returns 'relevant web content', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on search rather than crawling, extraction, or mapping operations mentioned in the sibling list.

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 ('gathering current information, news, and detailed web content analysis'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling tools (tavily-crawl, tavily-extract, tavily-map). The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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