tavily_map

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the return type (list of URLs) and the start point (base URL). It does not add context about external network access, rate limits, or how filters like select_paths affect behavior, so with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary detail or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 that the tool has an output schema and comprehensive parameter documentation, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter syntax. It succinctly conveys the tool's high-level function. However, for a tool with 8 parameters and external web interaction, a bit more context about crawling behavior (e.g., depth/breadth limits) would improve completeness, though it's already adequate.

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 detailed parameter descriptions for all 8 fields. The description itself does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 purpose: 'Map a website's structure' and specifies the output: 'Returns a list of URLs found starting from the base URL.' This is a specific verb+resource+outcome. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool tavily_crawl, which likely has overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage (for mapping a website's structure) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like tavily_search, tavily_extract, or tavily_crawl. There are no alternatives or exclusion criteria mentioned, so the guidance is only implied by the purpose statement.

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