Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• tavily-extractC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 'retrieves and processes raw content' but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'processes' entails (e.g., formatting, cleaning). For a web extraction tool with potential complexities, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic functionality.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('retrieves and processes raw content from specified URLs') and adds value with ideal use cases. There's no wasted wording, though it could be slightly more structured by separating functional description from usage contexts.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (web content extraction with processing), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'processes' means, the format or structure of returned content, potential limitations (e.g., site restrictions), or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with three parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or contextual usage tips. However, since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'retrieves and processes raw content from specified URLs' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from potential siblings by focusing on extraction rather than crawling, mapping, or searching, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The description is specific but could be more precise about what 'processes' entails.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides minimal guidance with 'ideal for data collection, content analysis, and research tasks,' but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like tavily-crawl, tavily-map, or tavily-search. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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

• tavily-mapB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. While it mentions the tool is 'powerful' and for 'analysis,' it doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, potential impacts on target websites (e.g., crawling load), or what the output looks like (e.g., structured data format). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the core functionality, and the second lists use cases. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff, though the phrase 'Perfect for' could be slightly more formal. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like crawling behavior, output format, or error handling, which are critical for an agent to use it effectively. The lack of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate more, but it falls short, leaving key operational details unspecified.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying general mapping behavior (e.g., 'discover and analyze site structure'), which doesn't provide additional details beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'creates a structured map of website URLs' for 'discover and analyze site structure, content organization, and navigation paths.' It specifies the verb ('creates a structured map') and resource ('website URLs'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tavily-crawl' or 'tavily-extract' beyond mentioning it's for mapping and analysis.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage contexts ('Perfect for site audits, content discovery, and understanding website architecture'), providing some guidance on when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'tavily-crawl' for different crawling needs, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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

• tavily-crawlA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 describes the crawling mechanism ('expands like a tree, following internal links') and control aspects (depth, breadth, guidance), but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, potential impacts on target sites, or output format. While it adds useful context, it misses key operational details for a tool with 10 parameters.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and key features in a single, efficient sentence. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the crawling mechanism and parameter roles but lacks details on output (what data is returned), error handling, performance implications, or integration with siblings. While it provides a good foundation, it does not fully address the needs for a tool of this scope without structured support.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the crawling behavior ('expands from that point like a tree') and how parameters like 'max_depth' and 'max_breadth' relate to this process ('control how deep and wide it goes'). However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly, so the description provides supplementary context rather than essential semantics, warranting a score above baseline but not maximal.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a 'powerful web crawler that initiates a structured web crawl starting from a specified base URL,' specifying the verb (crawl), resource (web pages), and mechanism (tree-like expansion following internal links). It distinguishes from siblings like 'tavily-extract' (likely for extraction), 'tavily-map' (likely for site mapping), and 'tavily-search' (likely for search queries) by focusing on crawling behavior.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage for web crawling tasks with control over depth, breadth, and focus, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'tavily-extract' for extraction vs. crawling). It provides general context ('guide it to focus on specific sections') but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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

• tavily-searchA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 'real-time results' and 'customizable parameters' which are useful, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response structure looks like. The description provides basic behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is efficiently structured in two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core functionality and key features, while the second sentence provides usage context. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and high-level capabilities well, but given the parameter complexity and absence of annotations, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or performance characteristics.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'customizable parameters for result count, content type, and domain filtering' which aligns with some parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool performs 'web search' using 'Tavily's AI search engine' and returns 'relevant web content', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on search rather than crawling, extraction, or mapping operations mentioned in the sibling list.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('gathering current information, news, and detailed web content analysis'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling tools (tavily-crawl, tavily-extract, tavily-map). The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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