tavily_research

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a rate limit of 20 requests per minute and that it returns a detailed response, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose if it calls external APIs, costs, or determinism.

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 at three sentences, conveying key information efficiently. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points that could improve readability.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not describe the return format, provide examples, or note differences from similar tools like tavily_search.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value for parameters. The tool-level rate limit note is helpful but not parameter-specific. The description does not expand on the meaning of the 'input' or 'model' parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 comprehensive research on a topic or question, gathering information from multiple sources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like tavily_search, which also gathers information, leaving some ambiguity.

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 advises using the tool 'when you need to gather information from multiple sources to answer a question,' providing clear usage context. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools.

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