web_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavior: requires CREPE_TAVILY_API_KEY, and that a missing key returns an empty result with a warning field rather than an error. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention rate limits or result structure.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds essential context about the API key requirement. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks parameter guidance and does not differentiate usage from sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps but not severely incomplete.

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%: the description provides no information about the 'query' or 'max_results' parameters. While the names are reasonably self-explanatory, the description does not explain semantics, format, or how max_results behaves, which is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 function: 'Search the web via the Tavily API.' This is a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('the web'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like academic_search, wikipedia_search, and fetch_webpage by explicitly covering general web search.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies general web search, but lacks exclusions or guidance such as 'use academic_search for scholarly articles.' The existence of siblings provides context, but the description itself does not offer usage direction.

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