tavily_pool_status

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: this operation does not consume credit. This is valuable context beyond what annotations provide (no annotations are present). It also specifies what information is returned (success/failure counts, cooldown remaining seconds). It doesn't mention rate limits or whether the status is real-time, but for a status-check tool this is adequate.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose (查看本地 key 池状态) and immediately adds the key differentiator (不消耗 credit). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter status-check tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns (success/failure counts, cooldown seconds), and that it's free of credit consumption. The output schema likely details the exact return structure, so no further description is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description correctly indicates there are no inputs needed. With no parameters to document, the description fully covers the parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds clarity by explaining what the status check entails, so a 5 is justified.

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: checking the local key pool status, including success/failure counts and cooldown remaining seconds. It also explicitly notes that it does not consume credit, which distinguishes it from the sibling search/extract/crawl tools. The verb '查看' (view/check) is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to check the status of the local key pool without consuming credit. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are clearly different operations (search, extract, crawl, map, research), so the usage context is reasonably clear. A brief mention of 'use this before other Tavily operations to verify key availability' would have made it a 5.

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