search_tavily

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully discloses return fields (title, url, relevance score, snippet) and a prerequisite (TAVILY_API_KEY), but omits rate limits, failure modes, or result freshness. For a search tool with no annotations, that's adequate but incomplete.

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?

Compact three-sentence structure: endpoint/auth first, return shape next, usage guidance last. Each sentence carries information, though the auth requirement could be folded tighter.

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?

Covers purpose, auth, return fields, and confidence tier, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves input semantics and safety/behavioral profile empty. It's minimal-viable for a 3-param search tool but not rich.

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%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It never mentions query, max_results, or search_depth, leaving the enum and defaults entirely to the schema. The return-field list is helpful but doesn't address inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Web search via Tavily') and even names the underlying endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling paper databases by scoping to 'preprints/blog-level web statements', a clear contrast with search_crossref, search_semanticscholar, and search_arxiv.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('Use for preprints/blog-level web statements') and a comparison to alternatives ('treat as lower confidence than paper databases'). However, it doesn't name explicit when-not-to-use conditions or route to a specific sibling tool by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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