tavily_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a web search and returns snippets and source URLs, which is meaningful. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, latency, or limitations of the search results, leaving some important behavioral 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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, use cases are stated, and the return value is given in a compact second sentence.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, this is a high-complexity tool with 15 parameters and no annotation safety profile. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent on parameter selection, date/format expectations, or how search_depth and domain filters change behavior. It is adequate for choosing the tool but not for invoking it confidently with all options.

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%, and the description provides almost no parameter-level guidance. The phrase 'any topic' loosely communicates that the query can be broad, but it does not explain the topic enum, date formats, search_depth, domain filters, or any of the other 14 parameters. With 15 params and zero schema descriptions, the description must compensate far more than it does.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web for current information on any topic.' It also states what it returns ('snippets and source URLs'), which gives a clear sense of the operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tavily_research or tavily_extract, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives a clear context for use: for news, facts, or data beyond the model's knowledge cutoff. This tells an agent when the tool is relevant. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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