tavily_research_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The auto-rotate key behavior is mentioned, but there is no disclosure of rate limits, possible errors (e.g., task not found), or what happens if the task is still pending. The description is too brief for a mutation-like query tool.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every word seems necessary, but the structure could slightly improve by separating the main purpose from the key rotation note. However, it is largely efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks context about typical use cases, expected behavior (e.g., poll interval), error handling, or relationship to the sibling tools like tavily_research_create. The auto-rotate detail is helpful but insufficient.

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 zero description coverage for the only parameter (request_id). The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter name; it merely restates that it queries status/results. The agent gains no additional insight about the parameter's format or constraints.

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 queries Tavily deep research task status/results, and along with the tool name and sibling tools, it is easy to understand its purpose. The phrase '多 API Key 自动轮换' adds a unique detail but not necessary for purpose clarity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., requires a prior research_create call) or when not to use it. The implicit usage is for checking task results, but it is not stated.

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