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 the Tavily API but doesn't describe key traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that performs external searches with potential constraints.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (external API search with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or return values, making it insufficient for reliable agent use.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about parameters like 'query', 'limit', or 'include_raw_content', failing to compensate for the coverage gap. This leaves the agent without semantic understanding of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Search') and target ('the internet'), and mentions the specific API ('Tavily API'), which provides implementation context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wiki_search' or 'yahoo_finance_search' beyond the general internet scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools ('wiki_search' and 'yahoo_finance_search'). The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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

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 states it's a search operation but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., article summaries, links), whether it has rate limits, authentication needs, or any constraints like language or date ranges. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it could benefit from additional context to improve usefulness without sacrificing brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the tool's complexity (a search operation with parameters), leaving the agent unsure about return values, error handling, or how results are structured. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'query' should contain or that 'limit' controls the number of results, leaving both parameters undocumented beyond their schema definitions. However, with only 2 parameters and a default for 'limit', the baseline is slightly higher.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('Wikipedia for articles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'internet_search' or 'yahoo_finance_search', which would require mentioning Wikipedia specifically as the search target versus broader internet or finance searches.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for Wikipedia-specific searches as opposed to general internet searches or finance-related searches, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

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 states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what kind of data it returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide the agent's expectations.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, return values, or behavioral traits. While it states the basic purpose, it lacks the depth needed for the agent to use the tool 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?

The description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, both parameters ('symbol' and 'period') are undocumented in the schema, and the description doesn't explain what they represent, their formats, or valid values. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter usage.

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: 'Get stock information from Yahoo Finance.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('stock information from Yahoo Finance'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'internet_search' or 'wiki_search', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or any context for choosing this over general search tools. There's no information about prerequisites, limitations, or specific use cases, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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