Tavily Web Search

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

The annotations already establish that this tool is read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'current information' and 'source discovery' as useful context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral nuances such as result variability, rate limits, or response format.

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 redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides practical use-case guidance.

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 straightforward read-only search tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential purpose and use cases. It omits explicit return-format details and sibling routing guidance, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all 8 parameters with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('the web'), and expected outputs ('current information and relevant sources'). It lists concrete use cases like fact-checking and news, which hint that this tool is lighter-weight than the tavily_research sibling, but it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 clear context: use this for focused questions, fact-checking, news, and source discovery. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative tavily_research tool or state when to prefer that over tavily_search.

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