tavily_extract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's non-destructive nature is known. The description adds the output format (markdown/text) but does not disclose potential failure modes, rate limits, or handling of protected pages. It adds modest context beyond annotations.

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 filler or redundancy, front-loading the primary action ('Extract content from URLs') before stating the return format. It is highly concise.

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 rich input schema (full parameter descriptions), output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. However, it lacks usage differentiation from sibling tools and omits any mention of when advanced extraction depth is needed, though those are partially covered by the schema.

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 100% with each parameter described, including enums for format and extract_depth. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 'Extract content from URLs' and specifies the return format (markdown or text). This distinguishes it from siblings like search (which queries) and crawl (which follows links), focusing on explicit URL inputs.

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 guidance is provided on when to use extract versus alternatives like tavily_crawl or tavily_search. It does not mention exclusion criteria or the specific use case of extracting from known URLs, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and schema.

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