tavily_usage

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

Discloses automatic API key rotation ('多 API Key 自动轮换'), which is a behavioral trait beyond the name. However, with no annotations it does not address if it is read-only or any side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate usage and behavior), but is efficient.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the core function and a key behavior (key rotation). It does not address error cases or return format, but output schema likely covers that.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable given no parameters.

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 '查询 Tavily 使用量/额度' (query Tavily usage/quota), specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (crawl, extract, search, etc.) which have different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is self-evident but lacks context like 'use before heavy operations' or 'when to check limits'.

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